An Epistemic Argument for Conservativism

Kazuma

I've come across an article in the journal of social political philosophy. The argument goes like this:

1. The endurance of basic institutions* is in part a function of their 'factual' legitimacy, i.e., their actual actual acceptance by the population they regulate (in other words, endurance and factual legitimacy are correlated).
2. Factual legitimacy is in part a function of how much these institutions avoid producing outcomes that are factually 'intolerable' (and thus not tolerated) for this population.
3. There is some connection between what the people subject to these institutions consider normatively intolerable and what is actually normatively intolerable (i. e., factual and normative legitimacy are correlated, even if normatively intolerable outcomes are not always widely recognized).
4. Therefore, actual endurance is evidence that institutions have avoided producing normatively intolerable outcomes in varied circumstances in the past.
5. The evidence that long-lasting institutions have avoided producing normatively intolerable outcomes in many kinds of unknown past circumstances is also evidence that they may avoid producing such outcomes in unknown future circumstances.
(X. Marquez, 2015, An Epistemic Argument for Conservativism)

*basic institutions are those institutions with the broadest scope of regulation (in my view, those could be, for example, capitalism, family etc.)

Personally, I find it to be more beneficial for the society to keep the status quo and to only improve on the current institutions, previously described as basic. There should not be a direction for a society, meaning there should be no desire for changes, as those changes are unpredictable and would only lead to creating a new ideology and revolutions.

unenlightened

Nothing is intolerable to the helpless.

Kazuma

↪unenlightened

So, changes are needed? Which changes then?

Terrapin Station

The Marquez argument as you quote it seems completely non-controversial.

Your final paragraph (starting with "Personally, I find it to be more beneficial . . .") doesn't seem to have anything to do with the argument though. That final paragraph just reads like a personal preference or a personal credo.

Kazuma

↪Terrapin Station

Just added my opinion, and my opinion is in accordance with those arguments because I disagree with changes. Main focus should be on the arguments, though, and whether they seem plausible or not.

unenlightened

So, changes are needed? Which changes then? — Kazuma

Needed by whom? The helpless are unable to change things, by definition. Therefore they tolerate even their annihilation. Those who are able to change things are those who must find things 'tolerable', and that is all that factual legitimacy amounts to.

Kazuma

↪unenlightened

Needed for the society as a whole. And without involving collectivist ideas, such as saying that everyone is just a cog in the machine.

It seems to me that you're just pointing at inequality.

unenlightened

It seems to me that you're just pointing at inequality. — Kazuma

No. I'm pointing out that the argument is no argument. Slavery persists in society as long as slaves are helpless to change it, and slaveowners find it tolerable. You can call that legitimate if you like, but I call it complacent bullshit.

mcdoodle

The endurance of basic institutions — Kazuma

I don't see how you know when a 'basic institution' has changed especially if you're so vague about what they are. 'The family' for instance is transformed from the time of my childhood (the 1950's) to now.

Maw

The argument is highly flawed as it ignores asymmetries of power within such populations whereby the elites may act to preserve and perpetuate "traditions" that are intolerable for other population segments. Unenlightened mentioned Slavery, and I would also mention that Monarchy is older than Republicanism, and Feudalism older than Capitalism.

Deleteduserrc

My two cents is un's point demolishes the argument cited in the op entirely. There's nothing more to say. If i were to do a film treatment of The argument in the op, it would involve a drunk plantation owner at a bar trying to sway an unmoved bartender.

Mongrel

Personally, I find it to be more beneficial for the society to keep the status quo and to only improve on the current institutions, previously described as basic. There should not be a direction for a society, meaning there should be no desire for changes, as those changes are unpredictable and would only lead to creating a new ideology and revolutions. — Kazuma

The argument is basically saying that a government that doesn't undermine the stability of its own society and meets certain basic needs will endure. I don't see how this is an argument for conservatism, though. Liberal thought comes to prominence mainly when the old ways aren't working anymore and new ideas are required. Only a society that never faces changing circumstances would be immune to this occasional need.

andrewk

↪Kazuma

Slavery.

This post used to be much longer, until I saw that unenlightened and csal have already eloquently covered this obvious test case. So all that remains to say is (again)

Yeah. Slavery.

Mongrel

↪Kazuma

Obviously slavery has nothing to do with your intentions with the OP nor with the argument you laid out. If slaves are actually helpless then their contribution to collective intolerance is zero.

As it is, they aren't helpless as the history of slave revolt testifies.

Deleteduserrc

↪Mongrel

As it is, they aren't helpless as the history of slave revolt testifies.

But all of history testifies to no set of institutions ever remaining stable, because things are intolerable, and the argument fails all over again.

Mongrel

But all of history testifies to no set of institutions ever remaining stable, because things are intolerable, and the argument fails all over again. — csalisbury

It is reasonable to think that habits and strategies that have worked in the past will work in the future. And it is true that change should not be invested in simply for the sake of change. Liberalism isn't about change for the sake of change, though.

I'm not sure why you think a governmental institution has to be immortal in order to meet the needs of its citizens. Could you explain that?

Deleteduserrc

↪Mongrel

I'm not sure why you think a governmental institution has to be immortal in order to meet the needs of its citizens. Could you explain that?

It doesn't need to be immortal. A comet could hit earth.

Mongrel

↪csalisbury

Irrelevant.

Deleteduserrc

↪Mongrel

Is it?

It is reasonable to think that habits and strategies that have worked in the past will work in the future.

Do you agree this applies to the US plantation system before emancipation?

Mongrel

↪csalisbury

Emancipation took place two years into the Civil War. That's some heavy duty intolerance.

Deleteduserrc

↪Mongrel

Does it apply 10 years before the civil war? Or did it never apply? And if didn't apply, ever, then why didn't the slaves emancipate themselves earlier? And if it did apply at some point, then slavery was justified at that point.

I sincerely don't see the path you seem to see out of this deadlock.

Mongrel

Does it apply 10 years before the civil war? Or did it never apply? And if didn't apply, ever, then why didn't the slaves emancipate themselves earlier? And if it did apply at some point, then slavery was justified at that point. — csalisbury

I'd apply myself to addressing that if I thought you were really interested. It would have to be tomorrow, though. If not.. I think we can agree on some really basic common sense:

What's worked in the past is likely to work in the future.

Deleteduserrc

↪Mongrel

I'd apply myself to addressing that if I thought you were really interested.

Oh stahhhp. Your post was contrarian and you know it. I'm as interested as you are.

What's worked in the past is likely to work in the future.

....like slavery.

Mongrel

Your post was contrarian and you know it. — csalisbury

No it wasn't. My impression is that neither you nor un actually read the OP.

Slavery worked fine for Georgia. It was a source of strife for the USA even as the Declaration of Independence was being written (read Jefferson's first draft along with his comments about the future of slavery in the USA.)

God you're fucking jerk.

Marchesk

What's worked in the past is likely to work in the future. — Mongrel

Or maybe over time humans figure out better ways of making things work. Conservatives seem to want to start with Ancient Greece or the 1950s, but human existence stretches back thousands of years before then.

The truth is that most of human history is that of being in small groups of hunter/gatherers. Farming and civilization is relatively recent. And over the time period of civilization, populations grew, technology advanced, and civilizations became more complex. Our understanding of the world, including the nature of social interaction and civilizations has changed over time as well.

You really wouldn't want Plato to come back to life and tell a modern country how to organize it's government. Nor would you want Jefferson prescribing an economic model. A lot has changed since then, and lot has been learned that they didn't know about.

As such, the conservative approach seems at odds with reality. Things change. A war to end all wars in 1918 didn't seem like that bad of an idea at the time, but such a war now is apocalyptic.

Deleteduserrc

↪Mongrel

My impression is that neither you nor un actually read the OP.

I can't speak for Un, but I did (& I think Un did too, since his response explicitly drew from it.)

Slavery worked fine for Georgia.

& for Georgian slaves too?

God you're fucking jerk.

Do you find this situation intolerable?

Mongrel

& for Georgian slaves too? — csalisbury

About as well as our present system works for inner cities.

Do you find this situation intolerable? — csalisbury

Yep.

Deleteduserrc

About as well as our present system works for inner cities.

So are you saying our present system should change, or that it should stay the same, bc it works as well as Georgian slavery did, and slavery worked fine for Georgia?

Mongrel

↪csalisbury

This was my first post in this thread;

The argument is basically saying that a government that doesn't undermine the stability of its own society and meets certain basic needs will endure. I don't see how this is an argument for conservatism, though. Liberal thought comes to prominence mainly when the old ways aren't working anymore and new ideas are required. Only a society that never faces changing circumstances would be immune to this occasional need. — Mongrel

The moral responsibility of every person and every generation is to eliminate victimization. Where that isn't possible, people should at least work in that direction.

If you'd like to explain exactly how the USA could have eliminated slavery in 1776, I'd love to hear it. If you know a way we could fix the inner cities: again: tell me how to do it.

Legitimacy is not about moral responsibility. You did know that, right?

Deleteduserrc

↪Mongrel

So (first) you disagree with the OP on the most essential level, then (second) opine that the stuff other people have posted has no real bearing on the OP (which you disagree with), then (third) when people explain why the stuff they posted does have bearing on the OP, you respond by saying you don't agree with the OP anyway?

What a mess.

But you're right, idk how they/we could have eliminated slavery in 1776, or poverty now. I really don't.

Mongrel

What a mess. — csalisbury

1. Institutions that endure are, by and large, providing acceptable outcomes for citizens.
2. What worked in the past is likely to work in the future.
3. Avoid change.

Un's answer to this was: slaves are helpless. You confirmed that this response has something to do with the OP. It doesn't.

An Epistemic Argument for Conservativism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions