It's as anti-reason as "If it ain't broke don't fix it." — Mongrel

No I don't mean this at all.

in many kinds of unknown past circumstances is also evidence that they may avoid producing such outcomes in unknown future circumstances. — Kazuma

A conclusion which says that it is a possibility that such outcomes will be avoided. That's not strong enough for my conservatism. That's anti-reason - they're refusing to use reason to draw the actual and real conclusions.

"Slavery" seems like an institution. It is usually organized, supported by law and social custom, endures across generations, and so forth. But...

Underlying slavery, and a good deal else, is the institution of "property", one that has endured for a very long time. Slavery was a subset of property relationships. What is counted as property will change from time to time (humans can't be "owned"--officially at least, in much of the world; PETA objects to animals being owned. Some people object to the federal governments ownership of vast stretches of land; there are disputes about the legitimacy of intellectual property, and so on).

The Civil War wasn't really about liberation of slaves and their up-lift to equal status. It was about redefining property relationships. The North wanted to redefine property to exclude human beings, and they wanted to impose that redefinition on states which supported the institution of slavery. There was some idealism here, but not all that much. Many institutions of property in the north (banking, shipping, insurance...) were up to their financial eyeballs in slavery.

The north had a political stake in preserving its institution of free labor, which had, among other things, given it population superiority over the south. The north was interested in progressive practice in industry and agriculture -- something the south didn't want. Industrialization (as opposed to southern agrarianism) also gave the north significant advantages.

The north was interested in preserving the institutions of centralized power. The south's allegiance to the institution of distributed and diluted power was a reason for the south both starting and then losing the Civil War.

Were slaves incapable of resistance? Of course not. But like the Jews in Nazi occupied territories, the forces arrayed against them were overwhelming. They resisted if they could find a way of resisting that didn't result in the certainty of horrific torture or immediate death. A group of Jews rounded up in the town square and surrounded by hostile citizens, could do what to resist? A slave in the field overseen by an armed overseer on a horse could do what to resist? A calculation was made to survive a little longer.

But that's basically a statement of conservatism. Preserve our heritage...

But that's basically a statement of conservatism. Preserve our heritage... — Mongrel

I disagree with that conservatism. That conservatism is right for the wrong reasons.

I think your conservatism is a reaction to Amy Schumer.

True.

I think your conservatism is a reaction to Amy Schumer. — Mongrel

:s In what way?

I think your conservatism is a reaction to Amy Schumer.

lol

Underlying slavery, and a good deal else, is the institution of "property", one that has endured for a very long time. Slavery was a subset of property relationships. — Bitter Crank

Hi! The author says that we might want to get rid of institutions that produce results that may seem evil to us (slavery, poverty etc), but he gives some criteria that should be met if we want to make that decision.

showing that some outcome is intolerable even if the population regulated by the institution does not think so, showing that no change within the existing institutional framework addresses the
problem, and finally showing that some alternative institution exists that can avoid the intolerable outcome in question while still solving the same set of problems as the original institution.

If we take for granted that it is property relations that produced slavery, then I think the author would argue that we could fix that specific part of these relations, as you said "What is counted as property will change from time to time (humans can't be "owned)"". This seems to be included in the author's argument. He claims that...

This argument need not imply policy immobility; basic institutions are constantly creating,
reforming, or destroying other institutions to address specific problems in their domain of
regulation. And it does not apply to less basic institutions, since the epistemic challenges that we
must surmount to change them may be much smaller.

Well what is conservatism to you?

Well what is conservatism to you? — Mongrel

I identify conservatism with a group of values, not with a method. Most people identify conservatism with a method of reason-skepticism which started with Hume/Burke and continued with the American tradition with Russell Kirk, etc. My conservatism is of the Aristotelian/Platonic/Spinozist/Schopenhaurian/Hegelian kind - reason based. This reason-skepticism is actually dangerous to conservatism, because skepticism can just as easily fall on the other side.

Welcome mew. Good to see that you immediately set the proper example, by actually reading it and attempting to understand it before criticising, which really ought to be common sense on a philosophical forum.

In addition reason-skepticism is inimical to my values. For example, take Hume, taken to be by many the first conservative. He advocates the use of prejudice, as does Burke, in making judgements. I disagree with that. We shouldn't do something because it's always been done. We shouldn't have slavery because we've always had slavery and it seemed to work. We shouldn't have men be promiscuous just because "it's how it's always been done". Chastity isn't a virtue simply for women - as Hume would argue. And so forth.

If you go here, then you'll see the big conservative principles. I agree with (1), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10). I disagree with (2) and (3).

In fact I'll paste it underneath:

First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

This word order signifies harmony. There are two aspects or types of order: the inner order of the soul, and the outer order of the commonwealth. Twenty-five centuries ago, Plato taught this doctrine, but even the educated nowadays find it difficult to understand. The problem of order has been a principal concern of conservatives ever since conservative became a term of politics.

Our twentieth-century world has experienced the hideous consequences of the collapse of belief in a moral order. Like the atrocities and disasters of Greece in the fifth century before Christ, the ruin of great nations in our century shows us the pit into which fall societies that mistake clever self-interest, or ingenious social controls, for pleasing alternatives to an oldfangled moral order.

It has been said by liberal intellectuals that the conservative believes all social questions, at heart, to be questions of private morality. Properly understood, this statement is quite true. A society in which men and women are governed by belief in an enduring moral order, by a strong sense of right and wrong, by personal convictions about justice and honor, will be a good society—whatever political machinery it may utilize; while a society in which men and women are morally adrift, ignorant of norms, and intent chiefly upon gratification of appetites, will be a bad society—no matter how many people vote and no matter how liberal its formal constitution may be.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription. Conservatives sense that modern people are dwarfs on the shoulders of giants, able to see farther than their ancestors only because of the great stature of those who have preceded us in time. Therefore conservatives very often emphasize the importance of prescription—that is, of things established by immemorial usage, so that the mind of man runneth not to the contrary. There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity—including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgment and private rationality. The individual is foolish, but the species is wise, Burke declared. In politics we do well to abide by precedent and precept and even prejudice, for the great mysterious incorporation of the human race has acquired a prescriptive wisdom far greater than any man’s petty private rationality.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. Burke agrees with Plato that in the statesman, prudence is chief among virtues. Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. Liberals and radicals, the conservative says, are imprudent: for they dash at their objectives without giving much heed to the risk of new abuses worse than the evils they hope to sweep away. As John Randolph of Roanoke put it, Providence moves slowly, but the devil always hurries. Human society being complex, remedies cannot be simple if they are to be efficacious. The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. For the preservation of a healthy diversity in any civilization, there must survive orders and classes, differences in material condition, and many sorts of inequality. The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at levelling must lead, at best, to social stagnation. Society requires honest and able leadership; and if natural and institutional differences are destroyed, presently some tyrant or host of squalid oligarchs will create new forms of inequality.

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability. Human nature suffers irremediably from certain grave faults, the conservatives know. Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. Because of human restlessness, mankind would grow rebellious under any utopian domination, and would break out once more in violent discontent—or else expire of boredom. To seek for utopia is to end in disaster, the conservative says: we are not made for perfect things. All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order. But if the old institutional and moral safeguards of a nation are neglected, then the anarchic impulse in humankind breaks loose: “the ceremony of innocence is drowned.” The ideologues who promise the perfection of man and society have converted a great part of the twentieth-century world into a terrestrial hell.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. Separate property from private possession, and Leviathan becomes master of all. Upon the foundation of private property, great civilizations are built. The more widespread is the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is a commonwealth. Economic levelling, conservatives maintain, is not economic progress. Getting and spending are not the chief aims of human existence; but a sound economic basis for the person, the family, and the commonwealth is much to be desired.

Sir Henry Maine, in his Village Communities, puts strongly the case for private property, as distinguished from communal property: “Nobody is at liberty to attack several property and to say at the same time that he values civilization. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of several property—that is, private property—has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labor; to be able to see one’s work made permanent; to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity; to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment; to have something that is really one’s own—these are advantages difficult to deny. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. Some of these functions are carried out by local political bodies, others by private associations: so long as they are kept local, and are marked by the general agreement of those affected, they constitute healthy community. But when these functions pass by default or usurpation to centralized authority, then community is in serious danger. Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through cooperative volition. If, then, in the name of an abstract Democracy, the functions of community are transferred to distant political direction—why, real government by the consent of the governed gives way to a standardizing process hostile to freedom and human dignity.

For a nation is no stronger than the numerous little communities of which it is composed. A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity.

Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Politically speaking, power is the ability to do as one likes, regardless of the wills of one’s fellows. A state in which an individual or a small group are able to dominate the wills of their fellows without check is a despotism, whether it is called monarchical or aristocratic or democratic. When every person claims to be a power unto himself, then society falls into anarchy. Anarchy never lasts long, being intolerable for everyone, and contrary to the ineluctable fact that some persons are more strong and more clever than their neighbors. To anarchy there succeeds tyranny or oligarchy, in which power is monopolized by a very few.

The conservative endeavors to so limit and balance political power that anarchy or tyranny may not arise. In every age, nevertheless, men and women are tempted to overthrow the limitations upon power, for the sake of some fancied temporary advantage. It is characteristic of the radical that he thinks of power as a force for good—so long as the power falls into his hands. In the name of liberty, the French and Russian revolutionaries abolished the old restraints upon power; but power cannot be abolished; it always finds its way into someone’s hands. That power which the revolutionaries had thought oppressive in the hands of the old regime became many times as tyrannical in the hands of the radical new masters of the state.

Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web of restraints upon will and appetite—these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement, although he doubts whether there is any such force as a mystical Progress, with a Roman P, at work in the world. When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate.

Welcome to the forum, mew O:)

~

I'm not sold on slavery being regarded as a basic institution. I don't think Marquez would think so, either.

Welcome, and thanks for a cogent response.

The extent to which anyone supports or rejects a given institution is likely to be ambivalent and ambiguous. Even some slave owners in the south thought that slavery was probably wrong; quite a few people in the south found the business of slavery objectionable. Some people in the north had no particular objections to slavery (after all, it was black people who were enslaved, and not white people who felt the lash of the overseer). The interests of workers were opposed because as "wage slaves" they were at a disadvantage compared to "chattel slaves". Daniel Deleon, an American socialist, pointed out that if a slave was re-roofing a barn and fell of and died, the owner was out quite a lot of money. If an Irishman fell off the same roof and died, the owner wouldn't be out anything.

In the present, people have ambiguous and ambivalent views about property relationships. To the extent they view themselves as exploited workers, they feel like they are getting the shaft. Negative view. To the extent that they view themselves as "working hard to et ahead" and will some day be rich, they feel like the pot of gold is just around the corner. positive view. They may entertain both views in rapidly alternating sequence.

Our vacillation, ambiguity, and ambivalence screws things up, resulting in a certain amount of lurching from side to side. Trump won by appealing to the most sensitive side of ambivalent and ambiguity in the correct places. Hillary did the same thing, won the popular vote, but didn't stroke the correct sensitivities in the critical states.

Reason skepticism is conservative for my society because of the influence of people like John Locke.

Reason skepticism is conservative for my society because of the influence of people like John Locke. — Mongrel

Please unpack this. I don't understand what influence John Locke had on your society much or what he had to do with reason-skepticism and conservatism for that matter (indeed I often hear him cited as the father of liberalism). I've never read or studied Locke. All I know is that Hume (who did have reason skepticism and who did follow Locke in his empiricism and whom I've studied lol) was greatly influenced by him.

Hi all, thank you for the welcome :D

In the present, people have ambiguous and ambivalent views about property relationships. To the extent they view themselves as exploited workers, they feel like they are getting the shaft. Negative view. To the extent that they view themselves as "working hard to et ahead" and will some day be rich, they feel like the pot of gold is just around the corner. positive view. They may entertain both views in rapidly alternating sequence. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I think I see your point and I also think that the author's argument is mostly theoretical because he seems to take for granted things that in practice do not work that way, or so it seems to me!! For example, he says that the first criterion that must be met when we want to make radical changes in basic institutions is "showing that some outcome is intolerable even if the population regulated by the institution does not think so" and later he says that this would be done in such a way... "might be that some institutionalized practices have the epistemic prerequisites (information, abilities, and epistemic division of labor) to show that some outcomes are normatively intolerable and ought to be avoided, regardless of whether or not they are properly recognized by the population regulated by the institution". So more or less by argument. But this takes for granted that the population responds to rational arguments. But that does not seem possible in the example he gives because he writes "a proponent of wholesale change might argue that we have substantial evidence that many basic institutions do produce such normatively intolerable outcomes, even if many people are unable to see this because of, e.g., ideologically produced false consciousness, and hence that these institutions should be radically altered". Certainly though, an ideologically brainwashed population, as a rule, does not respond in rational arguments. If it did it would probably have recognized the intolerable nature of the practice. So even if evidence is provided and the first criterion is met, in practice it would probably not help. And the author says that among the three, this first criterion is the easiest to meet. But I think that's only in theory! What do you think?

So I've read the paper, and the substance of the article is the argument in the OP, so the all the same criticisms apply. The author does, indeed, briefly mention slavery, to say, merely, that we might not want to preserve institutions that enable evil.

Yes, we might not.

I am proud of you son.

Thank you.

But I'm still confused why you think the responses to to the post are "hilarious" when they hit the mark exactly.

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/973/an-epistemic-argument-for-conservativism/p3

edit: oh sorry, a bit too quick in reply without properly reading what you said.

when they hit the mark exactly. — csalisbury

Interesting. How does "Slavery" destroy his paper?

edit(2): I have read the paper as well up to page 14.

How does "Slavery" destroy his paper? [/quote]
Well, one for the reason Un has already laid out

If the population regulated is helpless to reject the basic institution, as is nearly always the case, then their 'acceptance' as evidenced by the endurance of said institution has no value and no legitimacy, because everybody necessarily 'accepts' what they can do nothing about, however repugnant and illegitimate it is.

& 2, because someone defending, say, the US plantation/slave system could claim we ought be epistemically deferent to that system, for every reason the author gives. The only difference is that the author thinks we might not want to preserve slavery because it slavery is evil. Well and good, except what if opponents of a system he thinks we ought be epistemically deferent too, think that system is evil, and so intolerable?

Well, he disagrees it's evil, but just how intolerable is it? Can't be that intolerable - look how long it's been around! But then, again, that applies to who knows how many slave-owning systems.

The thing's a mess.

Well and good, except what if opponents of a system he thinks we ought be epistemically deferent too, think that system is evil, and so intolerable? — csalisbury

Exactly. And what was the outcome?

tip: see Democrats VS Republicans (the great Abe)

edit: by the way, the arguments in the paper are all too familiar to me for obvious reasons, I just have to get used to his terminologies, AND I would strongly advise you to do the same.

Slavery ended up being intolerable. Thank you Empty. I lament that you were radicalized, but when you're right, you're right.

I lament that you were radicalized — Mongrel

:-! We've all been radicalised, except you Mongrel

Good good, now go back and read what Xavier Marquez had to say regarding those changes.

Good job lads. Wonders can happen when you actually read stuff huh?

Somebody needs to make the distinction between colonial slavery and the slavery of antiquity.

I know. I'm planning to employ de-programmers for the lot of you.

Just tell me.