Liberal vs. Conservative Morality

Thanks go out again to John Savage for indulging my questions and for putting together a thoughtful reply to Conservatism - A Mighty and a Grand Illusion. That post is just an extension of a conversation between John and I started over at John's blog a couple of days ago. John's reply is in some ways a more thorough explanation of his own position with regard to why he believes conservatives to be the more sinful group between themselves and their liberal counterparts. In others, he throws a few heavy punches aimed at yours truly. But it's ok, I don't mind.

In this edition I'll seek to answer some of John's objections to my aforementioned post, as well as to clarify my position with regard to the traditional conservative definition of "self-government," as opposed to that generally held by the libertarian movement. With most of my readers I needn't explain myself in that regard. However, I should probably do so for the sake of readers not thoroughly familiar with my position on the idea of Self-Government, certainly not to be confused with that of libertarians. You may read more by clicking on the 'read more' button below...

First of all, John discerningly identified a problem at the root of some of our fundamental disagreements/misunderstandings and properly injected a much needed and worthy corrective into the conversation. His categorization of the different types of 'sin' is very well placed, and if he hadn't done it, eventually I likely would have though mine most likely would have taken on something of a different form than John's 'sin categories.' Nonetheless, as I said, this was a proper establishment of some governing boundaries much needed within the context of this conversation, so kudos to John.

But if I'm not mistaken, this is most useful confined to this context, probably having, on a wider scale, little usefulness. Category 2 type sins are those sins that virtually all societies have sought in one way or another to restrain in their citizens. Whereas category 1 sins are the kinds of sins more likely restrained within peoples governing themselves more strictly by their strong belief in a singular higher authority. In other words, the more civilized (and rational) societies have historically adopted this moral element of conservatism, whereas the lesser civilized societies have not. Of course radical islam would be an exception to this (rational) rule. But otherwise I think it pretty well holds true.

However, I won't be bounded by the irrational liberal 'anything goes' mindset in any of my conversations here or elsewhere. I simply don't see the necessity, nor do I see the obligation on my part, of trying to cater to the irrational among us. In other words, it's almost as irrational, to my mind, to attempt to address the irrational with rationality. As has been said before, the only way to have an intelligent conversation is to have 1) a mind capable of transmitting an intelligent thought, 2) a mind capable of receiving the thought, and 3) a mode of conversation common to them both. And I think that many times we more or less waste our efforts because the latter element is either very imperfectly established, or it is missing altogether, i.e., a common language. In other words, we speak a different (moral) language, liberals and conservatives, so it's virtually impossible for us to have an intelligent, rational discussion particularly on ideas of what constitutes sin and morality.

I understand where most liberals are coming from on moral questions pretty well I think. But this doesn't mean I'm going to waste my efforts trying to convince them that sodomy, or abortion, or whatever is a sin. No; I think it much more productive to expose the irrationality of their positions to the wider audience, and to govern one's conversations generally by that rule. Irregardless of how forceful, or logical, or reasonable my argument liberals will not assent to it. Whereas those who are not themselves completely and utterly immersed in the irrationality of liberalism might be reachable. I should here pause to put the idea into a context...

My firm belief with regard to the irrationality of liberalism is that while liberals reject category 1 type sins as such, it is invariably upon a 'moral' foundation that they must found their arguments against. So, what essentially happens with liberals is that they engage themselves in a palpable error arguing that they 'can't impose their morals on us,' and that 'we can't and shouldn't seek to impose ours on them.' This is self-defeating because the very argument itself is founded on the very idea of a moral imposition.

I don't care what it is that a liberal is vying for, if he/she seeks to impose his/her will on society with regard to abortion as an example, it never fails that he lays his foundation for in a moral perspective, i.e., that it is wrong to deny a woman her 'right to choose,' and etc... Whenever the concept of 'right and wrong' is entered into the argument then we've just established a 'moral' foundation for the argument. John and I would consider abortion to be abjectly 'immoral,' of course, but just as the word immoral has the term "moral" as its root, so too does the liberal's 'immoral argument' rest on a "moral" foundation. So, I reject John's assertion that liberals seek less government on moral questions than do conservatives, and everything else that followed. For it is simply that liberals have a different set of 'moral' values that they seek to impose upon society, and upon one's person than do conservatives. And as I said, the very argument itself implies an imposition, so it's simply an irrational argument worthy of little notice.

Now, to clarify my position on the idea of self-government, and to clearly define a distinction between my idea of self-government and the libertarian idea of same, I will identify what I take to be a huge difference between them. Libertarians understand "self-government" as essentially 'self-determination,' whereas I understand the term to mean exactly what it clearly implies - "self-control," "self-restraint;" "self-govern-ment." As I say, there is a world of difference between the two for the libertarian would argue that the most vital element in the definition of the term is one's ability and freedom to determine things for himself without government intervention, irrespective of how much harm is done to others in that exercise. Whereas I would put much more emphasis on what I believe to be the true signification of the word which as I said is self-control. I don't deny that 'self-determination' is an element of self-government, and even an important one. But I certainly do not accept, as libertarians do, that it is the most vital element thereof. Essentially I think that libertarians tend to exalt to primary what is to me a secondary signification of the term. But as I imply, if the term "self-government" were primarily intended to mean 'self-determination' as libertarians would have it, then the idea itself would require a whole different term. Self-government is self-govern-ment. And this is the difference between my understanding and that of most libertarians, as well as where we shall ever part ways. No; I am not a libertarian, particularly in my idea of "self-government."

More to come...

-DW