You're right, we were talking specifically about social conservatism. But I'm not sure Scruton is a left-leaning social conservative. He opposes gay marriage, is pro fox hunting (which is a non-issue everywhere else, but since something like 90% oppose it in the UK, you are so far to the right on the scale if you support it) and believes the church should be the central institution for social cohesion and derived meaning in life. By today's standards these are not at all left leaning.

You're right, we were talking specifically about social conservatism. But I'm not sure Scruton is a left-leaning social conservative. He opposes gay marriage, is pro fox hunting (which is a non-issue everywhere else, but since something like 90% oppose it in the UK, you are so far to the right on the scale if you support it) and believes the church should be the central institution for social cohesion and derived meaning in life. By today's standards these are not at all left leaning. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Left and right has, at least in my mind, to do only with economic positions. That's how I tend to use it, as it simplifies things and makes them easier to understand. So you're on the left if you are a socialist when it comes to economy. And you're on the right if you're a capitalist when it comes to economy. Other non-economic issues - such as fox hunting, gay marriage, church involvement - these are SOCIAL issues. Hence on the social scale one is either a liberal or a conservative. So we have right-left for economics, and liberal-conservative for social issues. That's why I said Scruton is a left-leaning conservative - as are the other folks I've mentioned.

What? I thought we weren't talking about economics? I understand the distinction between social and economic issues, but you claimed Scruton was a left leaning social conservative. I said he's not because xyz. Now you're saying he's a left-wing conservative, as if that was where the disagreement was in the first place. He's not a left-wing conservative in any sense either, unless you want to make the case.

Thing is with the labelling, as TheWillowOfDarkness has said, is they are so nebulous and undefined that they really are meaningless concepts if you want to have a meaningful discussion about such things. They make things easier to talk about, as you say, but that is the problem. There are so many variations to each concept that to simplify them into two camps is useless. Even now we're arguing about spectrum's and what left/right even means because they mean different things to different people in different parts of the world. You even said what these things mean 'to you'. Unless you want to get into specific beliefs and policies, it's not going to be a very fruitful conversation.

If you want to talk about a particular thinkers conservatism or liberalism (even that word doesn't have much meaning in the UK) then you need to talk about them at least within the context of their own country. Scruton is as right as they come in the UK. Compared to radically right US conservatives, he's closer to the centre. Similarly, the left in Europe is further so than the left in the US. This is why labels don't carry much meaning - even when speaking about the labels locally. There is no way of knowing where they lie on the global spectrum.

Edit: left/right means so much more than simply economics to everyone though. There's no reason to have this conversation within the confines of how you prefer to think of these terms and what they mean to you. There is leftism and rightism in more than just the economy, but as I said, that says practically nothing about what that means. It's specifics or nothing, I'm afraid.

Because the terms are not clarified. So I proposed to clarify the terms for the sake of discussion. If we use right vs left purely to discuss one's position with regards to the economy, and conservative-liberal purely to discuss one's position with regards to social issues, then the discussion can be understood in a much easier fashion.

What? I thought we weren't talking about economics? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes we aren't. However you said that Scruton isn't left-leaning because of his positions on gay marriage, fox hunting, and church involvement - and that he is right-leaning. I drew attention to the fact that I wasn't using left-leaning or left-wing in this sense. I clarified that I am using left to refer to economic positions. So Scruton's economic positions are more to the left - more for market intervention, controls over big business, protecting the environment, and so forth. Then I addressed the fact that he takes those positions that he does on fox hunting, gay marriage and church involvement makes him a social conservative, as these are social issues that have nothing to do with economics (and thus have nothing to do with left vs right).

Thing is with the labelling, as TheWillowOfDarkness has said, is they are so nebulous and undefined that they really are meaningless concepts if you want to have a meaningful discussion about such things. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes I agree, which is why I think the way we're using the terms should be clarified. So I hope now that I have managed to clarify the way I have used these terms.

This is why labels don't work. Conservatism can mean a lot more than what you believe it to mean. For example, in the UK we talk about privatisation of the NHS and other state-run industries, fox hunting, university fees, grammar schools, faith schools, immigration, and on and on. No one cares about the topics of life long monogamous marriage, abortion, or being pro-family.

However you said that Scruton isn't left-leaning because of — Agustino

I said he is not a left-leaning social conservative. Specifically social. I still don't understand, though, why you are brining economics into it intentionally (I did it accidentally and have stood corrected), when this thread is specifically about social conservatism? I know you only use those labels for economics, but you surely understand that none of us are doing so for the purposes of this thread?

They do work if we clarify what they mean. The problem is that these words are used chaotically from place to place. So we have to use specific definitions in discussions. I know conservatism is understood to mean something different in the UK from the US. I'm not discussing what conservatism is popularly understood to mean in different lands. I have said conservatism will be defined as a position on non-economic issues (on social issues to be more specific) for the purposes of my comments. Privatisation of NHS and state industries, university fees, and these things are economic issues. Therefore quite evidently, I cannot be referring to them, regardless of what people in the UK use the word conservative, or right, or left, to refer to. On the other hand, issues like immigration, the role of the church, monogamous marriage, abortion, gay marriage, family, adultery, community, morality, faith, fox hunting - these are all social issues. It's very clear from this, that regardless of where you are, you can look at the issues in your country and understand what I am referring to by understanding the definition. So social conservatism - I'm referring to all the issues in the second category (those that are underlined in the list). If you find anymore issues that are social, and not economical, then yes, I'm also referring to those.

I said he is not a left-leaning social conservative. Specifically social. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No, not specifically social. That simply means that you haven't understood the way I used left. He is left leaning = he has a left-wing position on economy - can mean anything from free healthcare, free education, anti big business, pro-environmental protection when it comes to businesses, etc. You now look at Scruton and see what left-leaning elements from that list he has. Next he is also a social conservative. Go to the social conservative list, and see what positions he has from there regarding issues such as immigration, church, marriage, abortion, etc. This follows because both categories - attitudes on social issues and attitudes on economic issues are required to state what kind of thinker someone is.

So in "left-leaning social conservative" the left-leaning doesn't refer to the social conservative part. It has nothing to do with it. It only refers to his economic positions. That's how I've been using the words. That's why I said it's possible to be a left-leaning social conservative. Social conservative is merely a description of his social policies - and thus has nothing to do with his economic policies. Left-leaning is a description of his economic policies - and has nothing to do with his social policies. Do you understand what I mean now?

Yes these folks certainly did have social conservative elements in their philosophies, as did, I might add, MOST of the Ancients. — Agustino

Elements, perhaps, but I question whether it's possible to categorize the ancients as either conservative or liberal, those being modern conceptions. If we judge the words by their etymology, of course, they aren't necessarily inconsistent or even opposed. "Liberal" of course is derived from the Latin liber (roughly,"free") as is "liberty", and "libertarian." "Conservative" from the Latin conservare(roughly, "to preserve").

I rather doubt Scipio Africanus can be considered a liberal in the modern sense, nor do I think Marcus Porcius Cato the Elder condemned him because Scipio was a liberal. He condemned him because he wasn't acting like a Roman should, according to Cato.

In the past, you wrote you thought Cicero to be a conservative, if I recall correctly. But Cicero is what Romans considered a "new man"; literally an outsider, born outside of Rome in Arpinum. He wasn't of the Roman elite. He came to be consul largely through his wits and was at times in conflict with "traditional Romans." Caesar was of the elite, however, being of the ancient noble family of the Julii, but was seeing hard times (Sulla was also of an ancient Roman family but impoverished as well when he set out on his career). Cicero, politically, was above all a pragmatist. He feared Caesar's desire to rule Rome as Dictator for life or some equivalent, and backed the optimates in their opposition, which led to civil war. He was a champion of the Republic. But he tried to avoid civil war through compromise, and probably would have preserved the Republic--for a time at least--if only such as Cato the Younger, Cato the Elder's grandson, had not blocked efforts to do so in the Senate.

Seeing as modern liberalism hasn't all that much in common with classical liberalism, I suppose you could say that I'm, in this day and age, a conservative liberal...

:-}

In the past, you wrote you thought Cicero to be a conservative, if I recall correctly. But Cicero is what Romans considered a "new man"; literally an outsider, born outside of Rome in Arpinum. He wasn't of the Roman elite. He came to be consul largely through his wits and was at times in conflict with "traditional Romans." Caesar was of the elite, however, being of the ancient noble family of the Julii, but was seeing hard times (Sulla was also of an ancient Roman family but impoverished as well when he set out on his career). Cicero, politically, was above all a pragmatist. He feared Caesar's desire to rule Rome as Dictator for life or some equivalent, and backed the optimates in their opposition, which led to civil war. He was a champion of the Republic. But he tried to avoid civil war through compromise, and probably would have preserved the Republic--for a time at least--if only such as Cato the Younger, Cato the Elder's grandson, had not blocked efforts to do so in the Senate. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, but Cicero was a firm defender of Rome's traditions, including of its form of government. He was also firmly grounded (even though many think of him as a Skeptic) in Stoicism for all practical purposes, and always remained guided by Stoic principles, where virtue remained of prime importance. Cicero may have been pragmatic in his politics, but he was guided by perennial principles. This fact makes him similar to what is understood by a conservative. He sought to conserve what ought to have been conserved - however he did fail in the end. He didn't manage to salvage the Republic - which he may have been able to do had he been more unprincipled. Obviously Cicero wasn't a conservative in the sense of thinking that everything about Rome was perfect and had to be kept the same for eternity - or that all the Roman traditions were good. In fact, probably no one was such a "conservative". But clearly Cicero wasn't a revolutionary - he didn't want to overthrow the Republic, and replace currently existing values by an entirely different standard. He wanted to maintain and improve what already existed. He valued, by and large, traditions. There have been some accusations of him having sex with his daughter I was reading - but it seems this is all coming from his political enemies, so not very believable. The Stoics were quite principled with regards to sexual morality - Musonius Rufus is especially close to being a social conservative in such terms.

Sure, but Cicero was a firm defender of Rome's traditions, including of its form of government. He was also firmly grounded (even though many think of him as a Skeptic) in Stoicism for all practical purposes, and always remained guided by Stoic principles, where virtue remained of prime importance. Cicero may have been pragmatic in his politics, but he was guided by perennial principles. This fact makes him similar to what is understood by a conservative. He sought to conserve what ought to have been conserved - however he did fail in the end. He didn't manage to salvage the Republic - which he may have been able to do had he been more unprincipled. Obviously Cicero wasn't a conservative in the sense of thinking that everything about Rome was perfect and had to be kept the same for eternity - or that all the Roman traditions were good. In fact, probably no one was such a "conservative". But clearly Cicero wasn't a revolutionary - he didn't want to overthrow the Republic, and replace currently existing values by an entirely different standard. He wanted to maintain and improve what already existed. He valued, by and large, traditions. There have been some accusations of him having sex with his daughter I was reading - but it seems this is all coming from his political enemies, so not very believable. The Stoics were quite principled with regards to sexual morality - Musonius Rufus is especially close to being a social conservative in such terms. — Agustino

Yes, he always seemed fond of the Stoics, though I've also seen the claim that he accepted Academic Skepticism. At the least, he certainly preferred the Stoic view to the Epicurean, also popular at the time. I hadn't heard the claim about him and his daughter. I know he was very fond of her and was devastated by her death, but don't think he would have countenanced incest. The Romans were as nasty as we can be when it comes to defamation.

Cato the Younger professed to be a Stoic, but I doubt someone so angry and condemning of others and so ostentatious in his conduct and pretensions to virtue could properly be called a Stoic.

It goes without saying, I suppose, that I admire Cicero greatly, and agree with much of what you say about him. He was a great lawyer, a master politician, and essential in bringing philosophy to Rome; he's a major source of our knowledge of ancient works of philosophy otherwise lost. A principled man, for certain. He even declined Caesar's invitation to join him, Pompey and Crassus in ruling the Roman world. I wonder sometimes what would have happened if he accepted.

a master politician — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think he was as skilled a politician as Caesar. Caesar was definitely another level when it came to getting things done in politics (even when comparing him with Pompey or especially the rich Crassus). Quite certainly one of the most brilliant of men at that. He obviously had the advantage of having no principles though. Because of his principles Cicero was ultimately outmaneuvered, by those who were more ruthless.

Cato the Younger professed to be a Stoic, but I doubt someone so angry and condemning of others and so ostentatious in his conduct and pretensions to virtue could properly be called a Stoic. — Ciceronianus the White

Probably you're right.

is pro fox hunting — WhiskeyWhiskers

That's my main problem with him. Other than this aberration, I think Scruton is an eminently sensible thinker. And a wonderful writer.

Fox hunting, and hunting in general, needn't be something conservatives ought to feel obliged to support, and in my opinion, they are fools to do so.

Seeing as modern liberalism hasn't all that much in common with classical liberalism, I suppose you could say that I'm, in this day and age, a conservative liberal... — Heister Eggcart

Relevant to the thread and now one of my favorite essays: http://people.virginia.edu/~smd5r/Kolak01.htm

It is actually an interesting issue. Which position on the fox-hunting issue should be considered the conservative one, given the positions that are considered conservative on gay marriage, abortion, etc.

His argument did not carry the day, but it seemed quite reasonable, or at least far from foolish--and eminently conservative: On foxhunting.

I agree, I've read many of his books and still have a few more on my shelf for times to come. He really is a brilliant philosopher and writer. I really like his ideas on architectural aesthetics and art (though I don't have much of an interest in art myself). His conservative philosophy is one I could really get behind if only our corresponding politicians governed with honesty and integrity according to the philosophy. Instead they're just toxic and corrupt.



When it comes to the issue of fox hunting though, I really find some of his arguments to be too watery. For example, it's a "way of living with foxes", the "its traditional" argument, or the "social participation" one. They're just crap for something that has less to do with philosophy than hard facts (but I suppose I can't begrudge a philosopher for being philosophical). The ethical argument, I think, just cannot be won by his side. To me, the intentional cruelty cannot be justified as preferable to simply letting nature do what it does (unless foxes face natural extinction, but unlikely). The only kind of argument that matters to me is the empirical argument, concerning whether or not it is the best means of population control, preservation of the species, or ecological balance. And even there I think we can come up with more humane ways of doing all of these. From the little I've looked into it, as I'll admit that I'd more or less made up my mind before looking that far into the topic, there are conflicting data as far as the empirical argument goes. So I (lazily, I know) side with my original prejudice, for better or worse.

I want to note that I didn't say that Scruton's arguments were foolish but that for conservatives to defend fox hunting is foolish. Though if I recall the last time I read his essay, I was unimpressed with his arguments for reasons similar to what Whiskey has given. There are other conservative principles, such as the conservation of nature and the notion of natural right as applied to sentient animals, from which one could find Scruton's position repugnant to conservatism.

There have been some accusations of him having sex with his daughter I was reading - but it seems this is all coming from his political enemies, so not very believable. — Agustino

But even if he was, you'd still have supported him, so long as it meant social conservatism won the day. Right?

But even if he was, you'd still have supported him, so long as it meant social conservatism won the day. Right? — Sapientia

Excuse me? This is about Cicero - he is long dead. What do you mean would I still have supported him? You can't really support dead people. And what does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? :s

Excuse me? This is about Cicero - he is long dead. What do you mean would I still have supported him? You can't really support dead people. And what does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? :s — Agustino

The tense I used was a clue that I was speaking counterfactually: if, was, would have, supported, meant, won...

You yourself used counterfactual tense in one of your rhetorical questions, but then you switched to present-tense in your nonsequitur answer. That he is dead and that you can't support dead people are both irrelevant.

What does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? It has to do with morality, and your willingness to disregard your own moral principles for the sake of social conservatism winning the day. Your rhetoric on virtue ethics and the importance of sexual morality is undermined by your consequentialism.

Your rhetoric on virtue ethics and the importance of sexual morality is undermined by your consequentialism. — Sapientia

Exactly, although I think the latest revelations about Trump molesting women and sexualizing children may be enough to make even @Agustino rediscover his moral principles. They won't be for many, of course, such as the Texas Senator who said he would consider sticking by Trump even if he said he liked raping women.

In more important news, Tesco isn't selling Marmite, Ben & Jerry's, or Hellmann's Mayonnaise.

I don't mind Scruton, but he is an awfully dull writer IMO. Terry Eagleton runs rings around him as a stylist (but then, he's Marxist. Although I really liked the first half of Scruton's The Soul of the World..)

IN regards to this thread, generally, in US terms, I have progressive economic policies but am socially conservative. Uneasy mixture in today's world.

I read Scruton's "Modern Philosophy" (Penguin) and found it very irritating the way he inserted his conservative and anti-continental bias into the book. If you're going to write an introductory book to philosophy, you ought at least be fair-minded about it. On the positive side, he gives a good exposition of Kant in "German Philosophers" (OUP).

I don't mind Scruton... — Wayfarer

Despite his support for fox hunting?! Or aside from it?

Don't much care for his love for hunting but I think I understand it, I saw it as an attempt to return to his cultural roots, a connection to his Anglo-Saxon ancestry (although personally I renounced sport fishing when I became interested in Buddhism). I have heard that his writing on Kant is good. Actually it was his book Face of God that I rather liked, the one i mentioned above I found rather laborious - I agree with a lot of what he says but he takes an awfully long time to say it.

I'd like to comment more but haven't had much time lately, nor the energy to do it properly. Let me just say that I think people who hold socially conservative positions should begin distancing themselves from the plutocrats whom, it seems, cynically manipulate them to serve interests that often run counter to their (socially conservative) values. And on the other side, maybe some 'progressives' could start breaking away from the divisive identity politics of the Left. I can understand the motivation behind those narratives, but do feel they alienate large segments of society which would otherwise be open to their forward-thinking economic agenda. We seem bogged down in racial strife at the moment, and a more inclusive movement which - at the very least - distinguishes between working class and 'elite' whites (and non-whites!) would appeal emotionally to the former while really isolating the latter. But maybe that's just my white privilege speaking.

I dislike the idea of placing meaningful emphasis on race altogether, and am neither proud nor ashamed of being white. I'm completely indifferent to the biological aspect of race in fact and am much more interested in the role of culture and ideas in shaping peoples' identities. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone in this sentiment. The strange thing about identity politics centered around race is that, in the attempt to invert previous hierarchies, its advocates push many of us into identifying with a group that we previously felt little or no emotional attachment to. It seems to purposely foment racial antagonisms by entrenching people in identities which they have no control over. This of course plays right into the hands of plutocrats who keep the masses at each others' throats, thus distracting them from focusing on the real oppressor.

Apologies for the digression. Lots of interesting points being made here, and it's baffling that there's not a single candidate that I can recall in my lifetime (in the US) who's combined social conservatism with a more leftist economics. I mentioned what I feel is an obvious point to Agustino in a previous thread, to wit, that a society in which virtue and civic-mindedness thrives - over greed and an exaggerated individual autonomy - would seem to take quite naturally to a more just and humane economic system. So there's a natural interconnection between currently perceived foes there. Good people make good citizens. They treat others with respect and dignity and, by doing so, foster good will. By neglecting the moral and ethical side of personal (and collective) development, liberals make their attempt to bring forth the just and equitable society they so desire all the more difficult. I understand the potential pitfalls and dangers of this approach - especially when undertaken by the state - which is why I mentioned previously that social conservatism should work outside the current political system through art and other means of spreading a new set of cultural values.

Granted this scenario sounds extremely unlikely at present, absurd in fact, but as an incipient movement I think it harbors tremendous potential to draw an interesting variety of people together in a coherent narrative. These people would be united, again at the very least, in a longing to transcend both the economic greed of the Right and the racial divisiveness of the Left. Instead of hating the wealthy we could pity them, specifically their sad fixation on the excessive accumulation of money and possessions. This narrow focus comes at the expense of the emotional satisfaction which can result from the development of deep connections with other human beings (and of course the natural world).

The envy and resentment we currently feel towards the rich may ultimately (hopefully) wither away, and we could then voluntarily scale back our needs with an accompanying feeling of pleasure rather than pain. By doing so, we would gain a sense of freedom and empowerment in our refusal to engage in the rat race. This hypothetical shift in values - call it socially conservative or liberal or progressive or whatever you like - would usher in a new sort of world. It would be one with new cultural exemplars who, in turn, would be emulated and admired in the same way that the wealthy are now. Perhaps it's not so much wealth that's important but the social recognition that arises from an abundance of it in our society. Other things could just as easily be recognized in some future era, just as they have been in the past (e.g. education, wisdom, honor). To my understanding, the successful businessperson hasn't always been at the apex of the social hierarchy, and need not be in the future.

I'm most definitely not against business, or even some sort of discrepancy in earnings based upon talent, effort and achievement, as long as the endeavor is subordinated to the 'higher' values of the community. That's clearly not the case now with 'profits above people' and with literally everything (education, healthcare, etc.) being judged according to its usefulness - or lack thereof - to the economy. If the profit-motive can be checked by higher human impulses, then I don't see these motives being necessarily incompatible. Wide variations in wealth do, however, appear detrimental to long-term social cohesion and stability. It's basically a matter of integrating certain cultural values into every aspect of our collective social, political and economic life.

Just brainstorming here. I'm sure some will argue that there's an element within 'human nature' - characterized by greed and acquisitiveness - which renders all of this totally laughable and unrealistic. My only (feeble) response would be: this hypothetical social transition is something that's been mirrored in my own life over the past 15-20 years, and I'm much more content now as a result. I'm sure others have had contrary experiences, but I do believe that many of us struggle to find emotional and/or 'spiritual' fulfillment within this current political and economic paradigm. Perhaps a new social reality - again, grounded in a new (or old?) set of values and interpretations - which did appeal to this side of our being, could have widespread appeal.

Thanks again to all who've contributed.

Out of curiosity, have you read The Meaning of Conservatism? I thought that one was quite beautifully written. I thought his other stuff was really clear and well argued, too, even though I don't accept all of it.

I've been meaning to read something by TE, what would you recommend?

Eagleton? Eww.

He's always reminded me of a modern day left's GK Chesterton. A peevish and pretentious literary hit man who is way too transparent in his attempts to sound witty and clever. That sort of thing should be experimented with on forums like this, not in one's professional writing.