This is a great OP. I was going to say it belongs in @unimportant’s thread on tradition, but you really have opened a much broader door. I’ll think about it and come back with more comments.

The resulting debate, therefore, concerns the epistemology of moral improvement: whether justice is better secured by refining the wisdom of the past, or by subjecting that past to rational critique guided by universal moral principles. — Colo Millz

I would submit that neither works at this point.

Reason was never all that great at the task at hand.

And refining wisdom of the past doesn't work anymore because the world has changed a lot since the scientific and industrial revolution and is changing at an ever increasing pace, so that refining the tradition incrementally can't really keep up with that pace.

whether justice is better secured by refining the wisdom of the past, or by subjecting that past to rational critique guided by universal moral principles — Colo Millz

Yes, good post. I need to think about it.

But my first impression is to wonder if the “refining” process involves both seemingly wise tradition and fresh rational critique - so it seems conservative versus progressive becomes careful/proven versus risky/theoretical (and again, “careful” conservatives respect risk and theory more than “risky/theoretical” progressives respect careful proof).

Nice.

Is tradition really as consistent as this framing supposes? You pointed to the tension between "All Men Are Created Equal" on the one hand and slavery and feminism on the other. There doesn't seem to be complete consistency between the traditions of India and of France, or even between Paris and London. Certainly, the tradition of gun ownership in the US is rejected almost everywhere else.

Was the abolition of slavery a result of belief in universal moral principles or was it to do with making accepted traditions consistent?

And then, is it quite right to describe progressive politicking as guided by a common authority, moral or otherwise? Isn't traditional liberalism about how we get along despite differences in those supposed moral authorities, that I can believe whatever I like, so long as I don't interfere in your freedoms?

So I see two issues. The first, that tradition is not so monolithic as the account supposes, but varies from group to group, leaving a need for consistency between traditions. The second, that progressives might see themselves not as relying on an authority, but as offering a way to negotiate between conflicting authorities.

I am actually very sympathetic to the role of reason in all political discourse probably more so than the Hazony, the author of the quote in the OP.

After all there is not much sense in developing, or uncovering, rights against slavery and in favor of the equality of women, for example, if those rights are not meant to be "inalienable", that is, universal. And if they are universal, then surely what that means is that our abstract reason, rather than tradition, requires this to be so.

tradition is not so monolithic as the account supposes, but varies from group to group, leaving a need for consistency between traditions — Banno

There is actually a strange relativism within conservatism I think - if we appeal to tradition in one society that tradition is going to differ - sometimes widely - from traditions in other societies, and now how do we converse with each other, unless we again appeal to a faculty of reason which can appeal to universals?

Isn't traditional liberalism about how we get along despite differences in those supposed moral authorities, that I can believe whatever I like, so long as I don't interfere in your freedoms? — Banno

I suppose Enlightenment liberalism is not itself monolithic, we need to define our terms.

What you are describing sounds more like a libertarian position, for example.

But for Hazony in his book, what he is calling Enlightenment "liberalism" is the paradigm of abstract reason, rather than tradition, providing the best method for uncovering certain universal political truths.

This author is skeptical of this method, especially in the political sphere:

Enlightenment rationalism doesn’t see reason realistically in this way. The confusion of nature with reason results from the belief that reason is a power that permits every human being directly to access eternal and unchanging “nature.” And since unchanging “nature” is assumed to dictate the political and moral principles that hold good for all mankind and for all time, the belief that reason gives every human being direct access to nature means that every human being also has direct access to the political and moral principles that hold good for all mankind and for all time. In this way, Enlightenment rationalism removes us from the biblical framework, in which there is a chasm separating what is right in God’s eyes from what is right in men’s eyes—a chasm that forces us to acknowledge that we are not God, and to treat the deliverances of our own reasoning minds with great caution, humility, and skepticism. In the new world announced by Enlightenment rationalism, there is no such chasm between the reasoning individual and knowledge of the true character of reality. Each reasoning individual suddenly discovers that he is himself the source of reliable knowledge of what nature commands, and therefore of the political and moral principles that hold good for all mankind and for all time.

Hazony, Yoram. Conservatism: A Rediscovery (p. 203). Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.

if we appeal to tradition in one society that tradition is going to differ - sometimes widely — Colo Millz

Doesn't liberalism see itself exactly as a way of negotiating those differences?

So you're advocating a progressive conservatism? I am very sympathetic, yet that's basically what gets achieved by clashes in ideology. The issue with conservative positions in general is that they often cannot be defended logically, the issue with liberal traditions is they only have the strength of science and rationality behind them, and the ideas of science are always subject to change.

It would seem then, with the clashes of irrationalitities, that one must ignore politics to the greatest extent they can, but I just speak for myself. I'm definitely supportive of your desire to discuss cultural idea, but count me out if it must be defended by some sort of institutional or bureaucratic reasoning. I've found in my life that the wisdom of authority can't be relied on in full.

progressives might see themselves not as relying on an authority, but as offering a way to negotiate between conflicting authorities. — Banno

In this view Enlightenment reason represents not rebellion but the establishment of a procedural means of adjudicating moral disagreement, where no authority is immune from scrutiny.

The conservative would say, however, that there is no such thing as a universal rational standpoint, to stand outside the competing views and adjudicate between them.

Reason always operates within inherited languages, moral frameworks, and social practices that give it meaning.

Thus reason in the Enlightenment becomes less of a neutral arbiter and more of an explicit paradigm in its own right.

Furthermore enlightenment rationalism breeds hubris.

This hubris manifests in the recurring modern impulse to replace evolved moral orders with ideological “systems,” each promising universal justice and ending in tyranny.

Thus reason in the Enlightenment becomes less of a neutral arbiter and more of an explicit paradigm in its own right. — Colo Millz

Sure. Although we've progressed beyond mere enlightenment... :wink: So we accept reason as not being neutral, and ask, "What's the alternative?" Do we wish, then, to be unreasonable?

And so the question becomes more about what sort of person each of us would be. What do we want the world to be like?

Is it just to be my forcing my tradition on to you? What happens if we follow that path?

So we accept reason as not being neutral, and ask, "What's the alternative?" Do we wish, then, to be unreasonable? — Banno

Reasoning is always situated. it is always already shaped by language, history, and moral tradition.

This means that all reasoning proceeds from within a perspective.

So - to appeal to reason to negotiate different perspectives is impossible, there is no neutral reason which can be an arbiter of different perspectives.

So, you ask, what's the alternative?

You say that if reason cannot be neutral the only alternative is unreason but this is a false choice.

The alternative therefore is that we must base our reasoning on our own traditional virtues.

Reason divorced from virtue can err disastrously, just as unpracticed moral intuition can. Thus, a human being guided by prudence, justice, temperance, and courage can reason well within both moral and social life, even knowing that reason is limited.

Reasoning is always situated. it is always already shaped by language, history, and moral tradition. — Colo Millz

Sure.

This means that all reasoning proceeds from within a perspective. — Colo Millz

Yep.

to appeal to reason to negotiate different perspectives is impossible, there is no neutral reason which can be an arbiter of different perspectives. — Colo Millz

But we don't need a neutral perspective; only an agreed perspective.

You say that if reason cannot be neutral the only alternative is unreason... — Colo Millz

Not quite. I asked, somewhat facetiously, if that is what you were proposing.

The alternative therefore is that we must base our reasoning on our own traditional virtues. — Colo Millz

Why must? Couldn't you decide to base your reasoning on Hindu Scripture? On Mohist logic? On Rawls' Vail of Ignorance? Is there more here than mere inertia? I guess that'd be fine, but it's not the same as asserting that your traditions are the best, or the right ones. Would "We've always done it that way" be enough for you to die in a ditch for?

it's not the same as asserting that your traditions are the best, or the right ones. — Banno

Is there some cultural smorgasbord we can all choose from, as if we are autonomous individuals with the leisure and expertise required?

Are you overlooking the possibility that some traditions are morally better or worse than others? I would give some examples but I don't want anyone to accuse me of being extreme.

Would "We've always done it that way" be enough for you to die in a ditch for? — Banno

Thought Experiment:

Imagine that you are a member of a tour visiting Greece. The group goes to the Parthenon. It is a bore. Few people even bother to look—it looked better in the brochure. So people take half a look, mostly take pictures, remark on the serious erosion by acid rain. You are puzzled. Why should one of the glories and fonts of Western civilization, viewed under pleasant conditions—good weather, good hotel room, good food, good guide—be a bore?

Now imagine under what set of circumstances a viewing of the Parthenon would not be a bore. For example, you are a NATO colonel defending Greece against a Soviet assault. You are in a bunker in downtown Athens, binoculars propped on sandbags. It is dawn. A medium-range missile attack is under way. Half a million Greeks are dead. Two missiles bracket the Parthenon. The next will surely be a hit. Between columns of smoke, a ray of golden light catches the portico.

Are you bored? Can you see the Parthenon?

Explain.

Percy, Walker. Lost in the Cosmos: The Last Self-Help Book . Open Road Media. Kindle Edition.

Is there more here than mere inertia? — Banno

1. Men are born into families, tribes, and nations to which they are bound by ties of mutual loyalty.

2. Individuals, families, tribes, and nations compete for honor, importance, and influence, until a threat or a common endeavor recalls them to the mutual loyalties that bind them to one another.

3. Families, tribes, and nations are hierarchically structured, their members having importance and influence to the degree they are honored within the hierarchy.

4. Language, religion, law, and the forms of government and economic activity are traditional institutions, developed by families, tribes, and nations as they seek to strengthen their material prosperity, internal integrity, and cultural inheritance and to propagate themselves through future generations.

5. Political obligation is a consequence of membership in families, tribes, and nations.

6. These premises are derived from experience, and may be challenged and improved upon in light of experience.

Hazony, Yoram. Conservatism: A Rediscovery (pp. 100-101). Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.

And what do you think of that?

I think the series of premises is a far more accurate social paradigm than any similar premises of Enlightenment liberalism.

That's a shame. Ok.

For example:

It is an assumption of Enlightenment liberalism that "all men are free and equal by nature".

But this is neither empirically true nor self-evidently true.

Sure.

It might be an idea to treat it as an aspiration rather than a statement of fact - perhaps as "We should treat all men as equal, for the purposes of the Law".

As in, what sort of world do you want - one in which we are equal under the law? Or something else.

And the crux here is that we are making choices.

[T]here are general truths regarding what is good for us that derive from human nature and the nature of human societies. But we are limited in our ability to know these general truths because human reason is weak and fallible: Human beings are capable of exercising reason and yet arriving at almost any foolish, destructive, evil, poisonous thing. Given this reality, conservatives give primacy to inherited traditions, — Colo Millz

My choices for a basis of appropriate action are not limited to general truths established by reason and inherited traditions. There is the matter of what might be called personal conscience. Here is a quote I often use when this kind of question comes up. It's from Ziporyn's translation of the Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi).

What I call good is not humankindness and responsible conduct, but just being good at what is done by your own intrinsic virtuosities. Goodness, as I understand it, certainly does not mean humankindness and responsible conduct! It is just fully allowing the uncontrived condition of the inborn nature and allotment of life to play itself out. What I call sharp hearing is not hearkening to others, but rather hearkening to oneself, nothing more. — Chuang Tzu

I recognize the issue of humans using reason to justify all sorts of foolish, destructive, evil, poisonous things. This is what Emerson has to say about that in "Self-Reliance."

I remember an answer which when quite young I was prompted to make to a valued adviser, who was wont to importune me with the dear old doctrines of the church. On my saying, What have I to do with the sacredness of traditions, if I live wholly from within? my friend suggested,--"But these impulses may be from below, not from above." I replied, "They do not seem to me to be such; but if I am the Devil's child, I will live then from the Devil." No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it. — Ralph Waldo Emerson

I don't anticipate you will find this argument compelling. I acknowledge this is more applicable to personal morality than social and political action. It seems to me that the "gradual moral self-correction" you describe often, probably mostly, and maybe always arises from the personal conscience of a significant number of people.

Having said that, even as a liberal registered Democrat in the US, I believe reform should emerge within the framework of inherited traditions not so much because that will lead to better, more moral, choices, but because that is the only way it can be accomplished. Has any significant political change that tosses out the existing social and political order ever succeeded? Is that even possible? I think about the gay rights movement and the drive for marriage equality. That was finally accomplished by judicial fiat and it now it is approved in almost all states, even the most conservative ones. So I guess my answer is "I'm not sure."

The resulting debate, therefore, concerns the epistemology of moral improvement: whether justice is better secured by refining the wisdom of the past, or by subjecting that past to rational critique guided by universal moral principles. — Colo Millz

And, of course, the answer is "both." I don't think my Democratic Party has done a very good job of recognizing that over the last couple of decades, but the Republican Party teaching children about the benefits of slavery to black slaves is probably not the right answer either.

As I said in my first post, a great OP.

Both assume mankind is collectively improvable, and that the political means are the only way to achieve it. But the fact that 6000 or so years of both trial-and-error and pure reason have been applied to every conceivable form of “political and moral order”, yet have produced very few noticeable results, it ought to have informed all parties a little better.

if we appeal to tradition in one society that tradition is going to differ - sometimes widely
— Colo Millz

Doesn't liberalism see itself exactly as a way of negotiating those differences? — Banno

I think it does.

But do we have to always pit the liberal against the traditional?

Conservatism sees “itself exactly as a way of negotiating those differences” too.

We need to use both poles to have any chance of negotiating any differences and making progress.

We make both progress and tradition. That’s how progress works. That’s what tradition is - a tradition of making progres is best.

When there is no forward progress then at the same time, there is nothing to conserve; if you lose either one, you lose both.

Banno, you should reasonably agree. You spoke of liberalism as the “negotiat[ed]” (unified, conserved) among the “differences” (changing, progressing).

———

1. Men are born into families, tribes, and nations...

2. ….compete…. until… mutual loyalties….

3. ….are hierarchically structured (which just repeats ‘compete’ again).

4. ….traditional institutions….and cultural inheritance and to propagate….

5. ….a consequence of membership in families, tribes, and nations (which keeps repeating).

6. These premises are derived from experience, and may be challenged and improved upon in light of experience. — Colo Millz

Interesting. Number six is a bit of an odd man out. It’s better suited to liberalism, don’t you think? I myself lean conservative but only because today’s liberals won’t be reasonable.

But would a deeply conservative English colonial traditionalist living in 1775 Philadelphia have thought of leaving England as a good?

I admit conservatives of the day didn’t forge the United Ststes. They were liberals, and they were right.

Thank God for liberal change.

Just don’t forget to thank God (as is tradition).

———

That's a shame. — Banno

What do you mean? Conservatives should be ashamed of being conservative? Or it’s a shame you two won’t likely get along much because you are more liberal and would beg to differ with those 5 or 6 items?

And I don’t agree with that list as stated either.

Conservatives merely find the good in what is now, and they are grateful. What is good now is therefore, there to be preserved, to protect, and to conserve. Family, tribe nation are good and it is the peace from even a sliver of present goodness that drives conservation efforts. (“Make American great again” says it was good enough once and we’re ruining something precious we should be trying to preserve.)

Liberals, on the other hand, are more inclined to look at what is bad now and seek to find something new and better, to progress. But progress is a positive, a good, much like the good that can be conserved in gratitude. So until progress is finished, liberals preserve and conserve the fight, and fiery activity of change, resisting the present badness.

So both liberals and conservatives chase the same good, working to preserve certain states of activity, just one is directed towards the present (traditionalist) and the other is directed into the future (progressive).

Conservatives and Liberals both have the same relationship with the past; they both find in the past what they find in the present, namely, conservatives see the good in the past, like liberals see the bad in the past.

So conservatives see the good in the present and lean to conserve present things that build a traditional that can then be seen carved into history (the past). Whereas liberals see the bad in the present, institutionalize the badness in the past, and lean towards carving badness out and building new futures.

Extreme leftists are those who don’t see any good in the present and need to tear down any obstacles (and they lose sight of good future goals - and you get Russia, China, Cuba, etc.). And the extreme right are those who don’t see any bad in their small tribe in the present and seek to prevent any change whatsoever, even if one must destroy all of the ungrateful tribe members (losing all sense of family and what was good in the first place).

Both extremes are shit for brains.

We each are, at times, conservative, and at times, liberal. (That is what western “democracy” is really made of to me - the unification of liberal and conservative impulses under law in a republic.). People all left alone to make their own private kingdoms to share in the town center as each chooses, but under the law all have ratified.

———

It is an assumption of Enlightenment liberalism that "all men are free and equal by nature".

But this is neither empirically true or self-evidently true. — Colo Millz

Are you saying you are more conservative than the US Declaration of Independence? That’s like “yes kings” conservative.

I still don’t think it’s “a shame” - although I think it’s foolish. (No shame because fools are everywhere).

We are stuck with the polis - the city, the political board, the laws and social congress. Equality, and freedom are made - and the government we make to allow us such opportunity, but shall not impede anyone any more or any less than all the others.

No one who is wise thinks the US constitution isn’t brilliant. We have thousands of years of data showing kings are a crap shoot at best. And over a hundred years of data showing communism and socialism haven’t allowed more people to be their own masters.

No right to life and liberty and equality before the law is not smart conservatism. Today, such leanings come more from the left than right. The types of kings we get today are communist dictators, not monarchs.

very few noticeable results — NOS4A2

One clear one is the US Constitution if you ask me.

Your post quoting Hazony got me thinking about the context of his ideas. It seems to me that at the core of the conservative approach, like the progressive one, lies the desire to find a universal truth—some moral or political compass that could serve as a guide for all.

Our era of globalization reinforces this desire: in a world where borders are blurring, it seems logical to seek a single system of values ​​that could unite humanity. However, history shows that such attempts often lead to the expansion of some ideas at the expense of others, often through force, as with colonialism or ideological revolutions, or as continues today through the intervention of some states in others.

What if the problem lies in the question itself? What if the search for a single truth is the wrong goal? Instead of a hierarchical model where truth is imposed from above (be it tradition, as in Hazony, or the rational principles of the Enlightenment), one might propose considering a networked view of society.

In this model, meanings, values, and "truths" are formed locally—in communities, families, or even at the individual level. For example, each individual or group can create their own moral compass, which interacts with but is not subordinated to a single center. This would avoid the trap of universalism, preserving diversity and freedom.

My idea may be utopian and requires further refinement, but it suggests abandoning the construction of "pyramids"—whether traditional or rationalistic—and reconsidering the very approach to the formation of moral and political systems. What do you think about this shift in perspective?

One clear one is the US Constitution if you ask me.

I don’t think a document suffices, personally, especially one that allows slavery.

Instead of a hierarchical model where truth is imposed from above (be it tradition, as in Hazony, or the rational principles of the Enlightenment), one might propose considering a networked view of society.

In this model, meanings, values, and "truths" are formed locally — Astorre

That’s the idea of the US Constitution. Constrain government power - to let people control their lives locally.

Of course 250 years later the government has taken over quite a bit (which really means stupid people have given their power back to the government quite a bit) - but your utopian vision is a constitution of limited government. This is what today’s revolutionaries want to throw away.

It's paradoxical, isn't it? Maybe the problem lies in anthropology? I'm referring to this greedy expansion of meanings.

I can't speak for everyone, but observing my own behavior, I've noticed that as soon as something is revealed to me, I immediately rush to share it. With loved ones or even on this forum. I think I'm not alone in this; otherwise, neither books nor even language would exist.

So, if we look at the situation using my utopian approach, we'll come back to the same thing.

People have had enough time to become smart and create something great, but apparently, the way we live now (including both the good and the bad, the struggle of ideas and the struggle of meanings) is the smartest possible way.

Are you saying you are more conservative than the US Declaration of Independence? That’s like “yes kings” conservative — Fire Ologist

So Hazony has got a whole chapter on the American Revolution and Constitution where he argues that the eventual result was a "restoration" of the original Anglo-American tradition, rather than a radical Enlightenment break from it in the style of the French Revolution.

In this argument he portrays Hamilton as the traditionalist and Jefferson as the Enlightenment radicalist, with Hamilton the eventual winner (Constitution) and Jefferson the runner-up (Declaration of Independence).

The Federalists of the 1780s and 1790s were not radicals who considered America a clean slate on which they could try out new schemes devised by the philosophers of the “Age of Reason.” They came to abhor Jefferson and others who favored such schemes, especially after 1789, when these were increasingly identified with the murderous policies of the French Revolution. The Federalists understood that the freedom of Americans was a gift of the British constitutional tradition and the English common law, which had been incorporated into American colonial law, often formally so in the constitutions of the colonies. Indeed, it is telling that in the four years prior to independence, no fewer than twenty-one editions of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England had been published in America. And when the thirteen newly independent states turned to writing their own constitutions after 1776, these were to a significant extent designed on the pattern of the English system of dispersed power, with a strong executive balanced by a bicameral legislature and an independent court system.

Hazony, Yoram. Conservatism: A Rediscovery (pp. 46-47). Skyhorse Publishing. Kindle Edition.

So he would argue that the American Revolution was really not at its heart an Enlightenment project at all.

the US Declaration of Independence — Fire Ologist

Now to the language of the Declaration itself, it holds that rights are "inalienable" and this indeed suggests that they are clear to all men and women by virtue of reason - they are universals regardless of whatever tradition we encounter.

And I am sympathetic to this idea, I think much more than Hazony is.

Now to the language of the Declaration itself, it holds that rights are "inalienable" and this indeed suggests that they are clear to all men and women by virtue of reason - they are universals regardless of whatever tradition we encounter. — Colo Millz

You see, these ideas are good as a guarantee of protection against outside encroachment on any of these rights. Which turns out to be a huge fake. They claim you can live, and your life is sacred, but only as long as you live by the rules of respect for this very ideology. As soon as you start thinking or speaking outside this liberal paradigm, you're in big trouble.

The problem of modernity, as I see it, is somewhat different. It's that no one is supposedly encroaching on your freedom from everything, but in this aspiration, you can go so deep that the very need to be disappears. I mean to be someone—a father, a mother, a man, a woman.

And everyone sees this problem, or rather, feels it and names it in their own way, seeking salvation in tradition or reason.

The essence of my idea is that freedom from everything has ultimately turned out to be, perhaps, the stupidest of human creations.

However, there's no reason to worry. The lack of tradition will quickly be replaced by those other guys (with plenty of tradition), as I wrote yesterday – "bearded and with tambourines."