4 ms·

If I can hypothesize: I think what is going on is that conservatism posits that the world is ordered according to a strict hierarchy and order, and rules given

If I can hypothesize: I think what is going on is that conservatism posits that the world is ordered according to a strict hierarchy and order, and rules given by an authority. There is a purpose for everything and a plan for everyone, and that plan is simple and laid out according to specific rules that are easy to understand. And the promise is that if you follow those rules, then you are by definition virtuous, and if everyone follows the rules, then everything will be OK. The social order is not seen as having emerged gradually or having been created by humans- instead it is seen as eternal, unchanging, and sacred. Now it might actually be psychologically healthy to believe that everything is going to be ok, even if it's not necessarily true. But the problem is that if you think that if you follow the rules of society then everything will be ok, then if things are not ok, it has to be because someone is breaking society's rules- by being gay for example. This leads to a bizarre conflation of social categories and norms with macroeconomic forces and scientific facts, which is why you see the right wing making otherwise baffling political connections between things like climate change and transgender identity. There's no logical reason those should be connected, but in the mind of the right, they are, because a) the existence of climate change contradicts the promise that if everyone adheres to the social order, nothing bad can happen and b) any non-traditional identity is crossing social boundaries. This also explains why you see things like monks flagellating themselves to repent in order to make the bubonic plague go away. It's the same logic. I think that's what is going on. And despite the tendency of academics to try to frame this in value neutral language, I really do think that this is an inferior way to see the world. A worldview built on simple rules is really the worldview of a person who has not built layers of abstraction beyond the immediate and obvious. You might follow the rule "thou shalt not kill", and that's good- but if you understood why that rule is good in terms of more abstract concepts, you might also be able to predict other similar rules. And when there is a new situation that nobody has faced before, you can make good choices where there are no rules to follow that apply. Abstraction is flexible. Conservatism is not, because it is a shallow understanding of the world. It is more like the moral understanding of a child than an adult, in which the parent is always right and it is the duty of the child to obey without understanding.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>if you understood why that rule is good in terms of more abstract concepts Can you explain what good is in your abstract concepts?
- fallingfrog 4y ago
  That’s a question that philosophers have been writing about for centuries! There is no simple answer. I suppose the best answer I could give is: try to think about the downstream effects of the choice you face, and think about what the world would be like if everyone made a particular decision. Politically speaking, I think the best answer is: decisions should be made by the people affected by those decisions. People more affected should have greater say.
luckylion 4y ago
> And the promise is that if you follow those rules, then you are by definition virtuous, and if everyone follows the rules, then everything will be OK. Is this not the promise of every ideological movement that isn't pure nihilism and wants to see the world burn (though I guess it would be for them too for some definition of "OK")? Though I'd associate it more in an abstract way with organized religion ("if everyone follows these rules, we shall have paradise on earth") and progressive politics. Conservatives usually recognize that not everything will be OK for everyone, they just believe that you have some/more influence on whether it will be OK for you. > which is why you see the right wing making otherwise baffling political connections between things like climate change and transgender identity I don't think that's a connection they'd make outside of political tribalism. These days, you'll have progressives typically arguing both for gender-fluidity and climate change (and lots of other things), and conservatives take the opposing role on principle. Similarly, conservatives aren't fond of Islam, so in response progressives embrace Islam. They'll often switch sides with regards to specific issues as the larger front is moving this way and that and power shifts. It makes a lot more sense to consider these things in a tribal way first and not try to wrap your head around how on earth someone's ideology drives them to do X. There's a lot of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" going on all the time.

Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago

>if you understood why that rule is good in terms of more abstract concepts Can you explain what good is in your abstract concepts?

fallingfrog 4y ago
That’s a question that philosophers have been writing about for centuries! There is no simple answer. I suppose the best answer I could give is: try to think about the downstream effects of the choice you face, and think about what the world would be like if everyone made a particular decision. Politically speaking, I think the best answer is: decisions should be made by the people affected by those decisions. People more affected should have greater say.

luckylion 4y ago

> And the promise is that if you follow those rules, then you are by definition virtuous, and if everyone follows the rules, then everything will be OK. Is this not the promise of every ideological movement that isn't pure nihilism and wants to see the world burn (though I guess it would be for them too for some definition of "OK")? Though I'd associate it more in an abstract way with organized religion ("if everyone follows these rules, we shall have paradise on earth") and progressive politics. Conservatives usually recognize that not everything will be OK for everyone, they just believe that you have some/more influence on whether it will be OK for you. > which is why you see the right wing making otherwise baffling political connections between things like climate change and transgender identity I don't think that's a connection they'd make outside of political tribalism. These days, you'll have progressives typically arguing both for gender-fluidity and climate change (and lots of other things), and conservatives take the opposing role on principle. Similarly, conservatives aren't fond of Islam, so in response progressives embrace Islam. They'll often switch sides with regards to specific issues as the larger front is moving this way and that and power shifts. It makes a lot more sense to consider these things in a tribal way first and not try to wrap your head around how on earth someone's ideology drives them to do X. There's a lot of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" going on all the time.