6 Conservative Principles

(Or the six principles which conservatives seek to conserve)

I want to continue with a theme that I started with at the beginning of the year: what does it mean to be a conservative. Now even among conservatives, there are many definitions for conservatism, but the the broadest definition that I can come up is that conservatism* is about conserving the ideas and principles which preserve our liberty. Conservatism is not about maintaining outdated traditions or some status quo.

*This is conservatism in American politics.

What are these principles which preserve our liberty? Well, I want to take a look at that. I have come up with at least 6 principles which conservatives seek to maintain.

1. Truth- conservatives unique attitude towards the Truth, and the method for finding it.
2. Natural Law- the system of ethics that our legal system is founded on.
3. Human rights- part of Natural Law, we believe that all humans are born with certain rights
4. Liberty- the purest form of freedom
5. Justice- we cannot maintain liberty without justice
6. Checks and balances- Our country has an intricate system of checks and balances that must be maintained.

Now most people who identify as conservatives are pragmatists. That is to say, they believe (at least some if not all) conservative policies work to create a society with greater liberty and prosperity for all. However, historically, and today in a growing movement, conservatism is becoming more and more about following a conservative interpretation of the Constitution.

Truth

Ok, everyone is going to make the claim that their position in the truth. I am of, course doing no different here. However, even beyond that, conservatives have an entirely different view of the truth. I would argue that conservatives and progressives have an entirely different ways of dealing with unpleasant ideas.

Conservatives generally have a pragmatic view of truth. That is to say that they seek what works best to create liberty and prosperity.

Natural law

Conservatives hold that morality is not relative. We also hold that there are some ethical laws, which are universally applicable, no matter what religion or culture you come from. We believe that certain moral truths are self-evident, and can be known intuitively. Whether you believe that it comes from a God-given conscience, or from your sub-conscious (System 1 thinking). The people can then elect representatives to pass legislation, to reflect the conscience of the people.

Human rights

In political philosophy, there are two theories on the meaning of rights: positive rights and negative rights. They are misnamed in my opinion, because negative rights are not a negative thing. Positive rights means that the government (and by extension society) must give you something, like free healthcare or education. Negative rights means that the government (and society) will not prevent you from doing something, like speaking freely.

I will dive into this more in a future post, but conservatives take the negative rights approach. Why? Because negative rights do not harm anyone, and they don't cost anyone time or money. It shouldn't cost anything to be a decent person. If you want to help someone out, you are free to do that, but no one should force you to do so. That would take away the joy of helping: doing it willingly.

Conservatives recognize many of these negative rights. Among them are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That "pursuit of happiness" is an old-fashioned term, I like to redefine it as the pursuit of anything material or immaterial that leads to human flourishing. If you want to make money, you are free to do that. If you want to spend money on health care or education, you are free to do that. If you want to give money to charities so that the less fortunate can afford things, awesome!

Liberty

Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever you want. Did your parents ever tell you that? It's true. First off, you do not have the freedom to trample on some else's rights. If you do that, then we no longer have freedom for everyone, but instead tyranny from the strongest. So we all must agree not to infringe on the rights of others.

Second, on a personal level, you should use your liberty to do good instead of evil. The government cannot make you a moral person. It can only pass laws and try to enforce them. However, if you personally are using your freedom to do things that are less-than-good you are wasting your freedom. Also, if you are using your freedom to do something that is addictive or dangerous, you risk throwing away your life or your liberty. Now, liberty is about letting people make their own choices, but I will always promote liberty coupled with personal responsibility.

Justice

You cannot have liberty and a civil society without justice. Without justice, there is no repercussions for those who trample on the rights of others. Without laws and a system to enforce them, criminals will simply bully the week. Conservatives believe that the role of mediating and dispensing justice belongs to the government (at least when individuals can't resolve it peacefully).

This is one of the main differences between conservatives and those like "liberal-tarian", voluntarians, and anarchists. Those ideologies tend to believe that government is inherently immoral, because it uses force. Conservatives understand that we need the institution of government to protect the rights of the weak from those who would trample them by force.

Checks and balances

Conservatives believe in a system of checks and balances. Our Constitution sets up such a system between different entities, namely the three branches of government. While the Constitution does not say the words "separation of church and state" (go ahead, look it up), it does guarantee that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,".

Now before you get too excited, the sentence finishes out "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Now I am talking about religion in the broadest sense: any philosophical and ethical system and practices. You have the right to exercise your beliefs, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. You also have the right to exercise, by using your moral code as a guide in your voting.

We believe in the tenth amendment that delegates all other powers to the states and to the people, rather than having a federal government which micromanages everything. However, during the 1800s, conservative Republican Party was founded to abolish slavery, because we believed that states rights do not trump human rights.

Finally, we have a democratic-republic rather than a pure democracy. This is an important distinction to make, conservatives don't believe in a simple "majority-rule". Why not? Because if we have majority-rule, then it sucks to be in the minority. This leads to the sort of mob-rule which allowed for slavery, segregation, and Nazism. Just because the majority says something doesn't make it right. Do you remember your parents asking you "if all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you go too?"

These are my 6 principles, which define conservatism. Different people may define it different ways, but I am arguing that these are the ones which are essential to conservatism. What do you think? Does this change how you see conservatives?

Biblical veracity

In apologetics, one issue has always been interesting to me: Biblical veracity. (How do we know that the Bible is true?) Four years ago I was introduced to the cosmological argument, which really simplified and solidified my confidence in God's existence. Still, I couldn't figure out: why the Bible? Why do Christians cling to it? Is it reasonable to treat the Bible as authoritative in all areas of life? Where does this book come from? Why should anyone believe it? I don't have all the answers. In fact, I would like to study apologetics in graduate school, and focus specifically on this issue. But before I do that, let me share some things I have already learned on the subject.

This post only covers the premise for my argument of biblical veracity, and a few sources to help you along on your own research.

Paradigms

You could also use the word narrative, or worldview. These are different terms, but for the purpose of this discussion they can be interchangeable. We all have a paradigm through which we view the world. You can deny religion, by saying that you are an atheist (or just non-religious or whatever), but everyone has a paradigm through which they view the world. Atheists may tend to adopt a purely empirical (naturalistic) paradigm which denies anything supernatural... and they may also chose a side of an objective ethical theory to go with that (like deontology or utilitarianism).

Now although our paradigms are embedded into our very psyche, let’s pretend that you were to detach from it and (possibly) choose a new one. There are at least two things that your paradigm should be. First, the paradigm should be logically coherent within itself. Now, I think that we are fallible humans, so there may always be incoherencies in our personal reasoning, but we should seek to have paradigms which are as coherent as possible. Any religion or paradigm will have questions or problems to solve. Secondly, we want to find the paradigm which best matches the evidence. It can't just look good in theory, it must match the way things actually are in reality.

My Premise

Now, of course, I would argue that the Christian paradigm is the one that fits this criteria. Of course it would take me years of study to get a grasp on the subject, and an entire book to explain it sufficiently. Hopefully, I will be able to do that another day. I also do not have enough time (or expertise) to write on the origins of the Christian Bible.

Aren’t there contradictions?

Theologians have studied the Bible for centuries to form a paradigm from its texts. You may object "what about all the contradictions in the Bible? Don't they make biblical Christianity an incoherent paradigm?" Well, historians and theologians and other thinkers have found explanations for many of these apparent contradictions. If you search for it, you can probably find plausible answers to virtually all of your questions.

Furthermore, as with life, there are paradoxes: phenomenon that seem to be a contradiction (like light being both a wave and a particle) but are not. These apparent contradictions are only signs of our limited understanding. No matter what you believe (atheism, Christianity, Islam) none of us has it all figured out. We are all still learning.

In Closing

So that is the premise for my argument: the paradigm set forth by the Bible (when interpreted correctly) is the paradigm which best matches reality. Keep your eyes open for my book, which maybe I'll release in the next ten years on the origins of the Scriptures, and my arguments for their veracity.

Further Research

In the meantime I would recommend Me, The Professor, Fuzzy, and The Meaning of Life and Evidence that Demands a Verdict. The first is written as a comic book, targeted to a younger audience, and gives two solid syllogistic arguments: one for the existence of God, and one for the Christian religion. The second book is much more deep, but it talks about the origin of the Scriptures and evidence for the Christian faith.