Modern Ideas of Conservatism - Assignment Example

Modern Ideas University: Course: Date: According to Muller (1997), conservatism is a political and social philosophy, it stresses how tradition institutions work best and that radical change should be avoided by the society. Some conservatives, while emphasizing stability and continuity seek to preserve things as they are. Other are opposed to modernism and tries to go back to the way things were initially. 1. What is it that Conservatism is trying to conserve? According to Giddens (1994), in conservatism, too many minds have been trying to conserve many things for varied reasons. The result is difficulty in arriving at a meaningful generality on specific policies favored by conservatives. Therefore, they expect unity among conservatives on various questions concerning philosophical or theological values that are usually misguided. The problem is understanding conservatives and conservatism in general, the question will be what is conservative trying to conserve? The argumentative respond might be status quo. Conservatism to other people implies opposition to change. However, Burke’s conservatism is unique. He insist that liberties and restrictions differ in terms of times and circumstances and that any abstract rule cannot be settled upon. Although similar to relativism, the views of Burke and generally those of conservatism are not relativistic. Their assumption is that there is something worth being conserved, the body of information concerning human relations set forth in the law. Like other conservatives, Burke opposes the idea of humankind being better off if free to do everything as they please. According to Kimmage (2009), Burke is a conservative, this is because his arguments insists on the proposition that society and government are not mere conveniences but necessary to human being existence. This justifies why he insists that men have no right to what is not reasonable and to what is not beneficial to them. He further adds that it is disrespectful for liberals to argue that everyone has a right to go to hell in their own way. Burke being like the conservatives in general insists that if human beings had some natural rights to ignore commonsense they would not be in existence. Moreover, unlike liberalism or socialism that tries to be universal in their reach, conservatism tends to be more nationally particular. In addition, conservatives stress the need for institutional and symbolic continuity and particular past emphasized. According to Hill (2009), conservatism symbols and its institutional ideals tends to have ties to specific nationally contexts. In considering the historical utilarianism of conservative thought and instituitions that are of wide range used as a means of defense, an understanding of conservatism that is accurate requires considerations of the changing historical contexts from which it has evolved. Conservatives often find themselves trying to conserve the existing institutions. The most notable include the welfare state instead of undermining them. Conservatism varies widely in different countries. According to Stankiewicz (1993), conservatism in most European countries suggests Catholism political influence. Conservatism will arise to explicate the usefulness of institutions that often remains hidden when current institutions and practices survival is no longer taken for granted. They will do this in order to be able to justify their existence that is continued. Classification of an argument as being conservative or not depend mostly in the part on the context in which it made. This is because defense of historically supernatural institutions is the hallmark of reactionaries and not conservatives. Liberals disagree on some issues, for example, how to view relationship between an individual and society, modern liberals will not be in a position to embrace attitude which is agonistic. Conservatives want to conserve the existing social order because they view it as being the right kind of order or because of their opposition to transform for some other cause. Political scientists like Samuel Huntington argued conservatism is not substantive political creed as compared to socialism and even liberalism or fascism. He insisted that conservative essential principles or values did not exist. He further suggested that instead conservatism was essentially a positional ideology. This implied that conservatives focus mainly on how to prevent the destabilizing effects of social and political change. On threatening the foundations of society, men are reminded by the conservative ideology of the necessity of some institutions and the desirability of those in existence. This is how other conservatism understands conservatism. These conservatives do not give substantive philosophy and rejects any conception of a transcendental moral order, hence skeptical. They prefer to conserve less because what is in existence is right that because of fear of the consequences of change. Edmund Burke’s controversial characterization of the enlightenment as he evaluates French revolution is reflected in the argument that conservatism came up to oppose the enlightenment and the French revolution. David Hume’s thought marked a turning point in the development of conservative social and political to become a rational, secular policy. Conservatism precursors may be traced in the Anglican critique of the puritan disagreement that the inspired congregation and the elect were entitled to exercise political authority through guidance by their individual interpretation of the bible. Hume set off by borrowing and doing an expansion on his review of the politics of religious enthusiasm. He continued to criticize further, what he saw as philosophically unlikely and politically rebellious doctrines of natural rights as secular counterparts and voluntary contract as the only legitimate basis of political obligation. Using similar terms burke attacked what he referred to as abuse of reason among some enlightened thinkers. 2- What is the relationship between welfare and individual rights in Political Liberalism? According to Kukathas (2003), political liberalism is a modification to John Rawls theory of justice. He attempted to show that his theory of justice is not all-inclusive origin of the good. Instead, compatible with a liberal origin of the role of justice that government should be neutral between competing conceptions of good. Rawl tries to show that his two principles of justice, properly understood form a theory of the right as opposed to a theory of the good that would be supported by all reasonable individuals even under conditions of reasonable pluralism. According to Davion and Wolf (2000), society is composed with plurality of persons each having his or her own aims, interests and conceptions of the good. Importance of justice and sanctity of individual rights have been emphasized by liberal thinkers Liberalism begins by stating that everyone is an individual and that they have rights. Being a political position, liberalism has been useful means that offer protection to people to ensure they are not abused by authority. Initially liberalism was a radical doctrine that was used to stand for protection of propertied interests. Liberalism had freedom as it key value. Liberal main values are associated with specific important freedom that includes freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of worship. The argument of liberals is that they are in a position to regulate themselves only if they are not interfered with by the state. They further argue that the state activity regardless of its intentions has possibility of undermining individual freedom. Moreover, they insist that society is too complex to be interfered with, and that the best protection of individual rights is constituted by the activities of free market. Liberals have the faith in possibility to improve the current social conditions. Emphasize on equal rights is maintained, and liberals aim to attain this form of equality. According to Sandel (1998), apart from focusing on equality of rights and betterment, liberalsm concentrates on creating space for individuals to be able to track their own lives or their own different conception of what is good. Ronald Dworkin in the 1970, applied utilitarian calculations which had relation with economic rationalism and initiatives determined by policies strived to attain general social welfare and security. This was in contrast with liberal commitment to individual rights. Dworkin first stated that liberal society were unique in that they were committed to protect individual rights. He further stated that it opted to face disadvantages to policy and economic rationalism for the sake of individual dignity and freedom being preserved. In his argument, Dworkin stated that general welfare greater levels could be attained through forcing flawless uniformity that does not recognize the rights of individuals. This however will lead to compromise of western society liberal philosophy, which put value to the dignity and freedom of individuals. According to Sandel (2007), Rawls work inspired an argument within rights oriented liberalism. The question was that if certain individual rights are important, they should not be overridden by general welfare considerations. According to White (1997), libertarian liberals who included Robert Nozick and Fredrick Hayek came up with an argument that the government should value essential civil and political liberties, and the rewards of the individuals’ labor as presented by market economy. They further argue that individual rights are violated by redistributive policies that tax the rich in order for the poor to get support. Egalitarian Liberals like Rawl disagree with this in that they put up an argument stating that civil and political liberties cannot be exercised significantly without basic social and economic needs being provided. They insist that government has the responsibility to assure everyone an adequate level of goods that includes education, income, healthcare and housing. Rawls’ work centers based on assumption that shred by libertarian and egalitarian liberals prompted another argument. It insisted that the government faced by competing conceptions of good life should choose to be neutral. Regardless of individuals’ different accounts of what right they have, rights oriented liberals arrived at an agreement stating that the principles of justice specifying individuals’ rights should not rely on any specific conception of good life regarding their justification. Being central to the liberalism of Kant, Rawls and other liberals, this idea is concluded in the claim that the right comes prior to the good. For Rawls as for Kants, concerning the right coming prior to the good can be classified in two senses. First is that assured individual rights outweigh the common good considerations. Secondly is that the right is prior to the good as principles of justice stating individuals rights do not have to rely on any specific conception of the good to be justified. References Davion, V, Wolf, C (2000), The idea of a political liberalism: essays on Rawls, London: Rowman & Littlefield. Giddens, A (1994), beyond left and right: the future of radical politics, London: Stanford University Press. Hill, J (2009), the Political Centrist, USA: Vanderbilt University Press. Kimmage, M (2009), the conservative turn: Lionel Trilling, Whittaker Chambers, and the lessons of anti-communism, London: Harvard University Press. Kukathas, C (2003), John Rawls: Political liberalism and the law of peoples, London: Taylor & Francis. Muller, J (1997), Conservatism: an anthology of social and political thought from David Hume to the present, USA: Princeton University Press. Sandel, M (1998), Liberalism and the limits of justice, London: Cambridge University Press Sandel, M (2007), Justice: a reader, London: Oxford University Press Stankiewicz, W (1993), In search of a political philosophy: ideologies at the close of the twentieth century, USA: Routledge. White, M (1997), Partisan or neutral? The futility of public political theory, London: Rowman & Littlefield. Read More