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.

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.

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 slow, steady empirical analysis at the heart of Enlightenment Liberalism? — T Clark

I think it goes back to Aquinas and then from him back to Aristotle.

Hack yourself to pieces, and then put yourself back together. — punos

I would say this approach is completely impossible.

It is not possible to view oneself from the "View from Nowhere", completely devoid of everything except one's rational faculties.

We are placed in systems of hierarchies and traditions into which we are "thrown", which are "givens", to us, and with which we have to deal.

They must be reviewed, repaired, sometimes challenged, but they cannot be escaped, as if we can place ourselves in sterile laboratories of reason.

The rationalism of enlightenment liberalism has produced nothing but monsters.

The only surefire way to proceed is through slow, steady empirical analysis, review and repair of traditional structures.

Tell that to your fellow militants. I'm a colonel and you're a sergeant and I shout "attention", you must comply. Same with principles and actions. — Copernicus

Aquinas would say that principles are not like commands shouted by a superior - they are expressions of reason itself.

Whatever that may be, it's not categorical morality (adherence to rigid principles). — Copernicus

I begin to suspect that you are arguing against a strawman here.

I don't think any deontological theorist would define "categorical morality" in the way you are doing.

For Aquinas, for example, all three of: intention, object and circumstances; must align with right reason, in order for the act to be moral.

Even Kant, the ultimate deontologist, elevated Aquinas' "intention" into a categorical "duty".

Much like the chain of command in the military. — Copernicus

If the soldiers don't intend to follow orders there's not much point being in the army.

Since when did categorical morality depend on intentions? — Copernicus

Since Aquinas.

Summa Theologiae I–II, q.18, a.4.

Morality depends on what the will chooses as an end.

I can't verify moral truths. — ProtagoranSocratist

Moral truths may be “verifiable” in principle if one adopts rationalist, consequentialist, or intuitionist frameworks.

But even a cultural relativist would say that moral truths can be verified simply by referring to the norms of the societies in question.

In a material sense perpetual economic growth is not possible simply because of the laws of thermodynamics - eventually you reach a state where ethe finite physical inputs of the system are reached.

In an immaterial sense I am not so sure - items such as software and services for example are not constrained by finite physical inputs is exactly the same way.

the Trolley Dilemma — Copernicus

Since the intention is to save five, not to kill one, then in this case the utilitarian solution is the same as the deontological one.

Problem solved.

... it was rhetorical in the sense that i do not believe it, or think it's possible. Christian fundamentalists are not the only people who evoke a morality that "should" apply to strangers, and it's pretty much impossible to avoid talking about the scope of moral ideas when trying to lay a code of ethics or impose "right and wrong". — ProtagoranSocratist

What's wrong with saying that moral truths exist independently of human opinion.

It seems to me that there are moral facts (e.g., “torturing children for fun is wrong”) that are true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Am I literally the only person left on earth who thinks it is going to be awesome?

incontinence of the void

Erm ... what?

Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.

Beings are not separate from being, and being is not separate from beings. Sure, we can draw a conceptual distinction between being and beings, but it doesn't seem to follow that being can be without beings or that beings can be without being. — Janus

They are separate in the same sense that a true fact, 2+2=4, is "separate from" truth.

if god is being itself, and there is no real separation (as opposed to conceptual distinction) between being and beings then there is no separation between god and nature. — Janus

“That which exists is not the same as existence itself.” (ST I, q.3, a.4)

In fact MMA is much safer than boxing.

In boxing you have the repeated blows to the head resulting in long term brain injury.

The "punch-drunk" syndrome.

In boxing the primary target is the head.

Boxers sustain hundreds of sub-concussive blows per fight and in training.

In MMA you have a single blow to the head instead of multiple repeated blows.