What is a liberal?

Yes indeed. I am presenting a hyptethical scenario in which liberals by definition would support the status quo, in order to prove you wrong. Point being that liberals per definition strive for liberty, and not first and foremost for change. It just so happens that this strive for liberty often makes them wish to change the status quo, but you must understand that liberty is their goal, and not change just for the sake of it.

I am talking about anglo-saxon conservatism in particular, and western in general. But nevermind that. Note that In your previous post you didn't say 'characterized by' but you said that they 'always resist challenges to the status quo'. All one has to do to disprove that silly and unfounded generalisation is provide but one example of the contrary. And I'll repeat one already given: they want to repeal obamacare.

 

Is this your theory of rationality?

 

That's perhaps true, but in that leads us to the conclusion that what's moral isn't necessarily the best. Only the results matter after all. I'd prefer the action with the worst of intentions but with good results, over the actions with the best of intentions but with horrible results. I'm pretty machiavellian about these things.

 

You are "discussing contemporary liberalism" but you don't seem to know anything about it, except the negative stereotypes imposed on "liberal ideology" by the RIGHT!

- - - Updated - - -

And who wants to force away 40% of a person's living and spend it on the ruling class?

Please provide a link that supports and explain your comment.

 

As a bald, unqualified statement, that is totally correct, and makes the point of my thread. Why on earth would anyone describe something like that as 'liberal'?

 

You're avoiding the question.

Who's doing the defining here? I'm very aware of the conservative need to define others, we see it every where on this very thread, but you claim to be a liberal. What I'm curious about is why conservatives need to define themselves in terms of liberalism?

F.A. Hayek, the economist that most conservatives lean toward, said this;

So, rather than simply accepting the idea that you identify yourself as a liberal, it would be a good idea for you to state what it is you're talking about. In short, why should anybody believe what you're saying, since you offer nothing in response to a question. What definition of Liberalism are you talking about? Maybe it isn't even valid.

 

Do you like that is a ponzi scheme based on an unsustainable population growth in order to stave off tax increases and cuts? Don't you even have to admit the population issue is a problem? Can you do that much? It is also a regressive tax, you OK with that too?

50 year anniversary coming up, poverty right where it was with more institutional problems in the family unit. Yes. It was a failure, lets repeal it and try again or does protection of the status quo at all costs the only thing the left likes? What we had before it worked better, more left poverty in the 5 years before, then in the 50 since. (Even more left poverty if you go back 10, 15, 20 etc... years before the war on poverty)

What is the moral worth of a poverty program that has helped literally no one statistically speaking get out of poverty? The best two times for the poor since the war on poverty is when Reagan and Gingrich cut those programs. Other then those two eras, it has remained flat despite trillions in spending.

Kant kind of sucked and you know full well you dont want to have to defend him here today. If you do, start a new thread and mention me and I can come over there and argue with you all day about that man.

Motive doesn't mean diddly, results do. Doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is why poverty hasnt declined one iota since the war on poverty and the tax burden is harming the middle class and the spending burden is harming out nation.

So Mao's cultural revolution that left millions dead was a good thing because it had good intentions despite disastrous results? If so, should we keep disastrous programs forever just because they had good intentions, despite abject failure? How long must we suffer just because someone meant well when they did wrong?

 

Hayek considers himself a liberal though because he is. A classic liberal. Here is the thing. In Europe and Canada, a liberal means what you would call "right wing". We believe in liberty. The left would be conservatives, they like power conserved in the ruling class - like they do here. That is the argument you are having. You are claiming the definition as twisted by the American left, he is using the definition as it exists everywhere else in the world and throughout history until the left hijacked it.

 

The definition of Liberalism I use is the actual one, the original one, though since "liberal" has been hijacked by social democrats Americans coined the term Libertarian to mean what liberal is supposed to mean. If I say I'm libertarian people know what I am.

Really it's more of a language pet peeve of mine than a real problem - the words "liberal" and "social democrat" are almost synonyms in American lexicon (not in Europe though), though most Americans don't use the latter. Every time a Democrat calls himself a liberal, or indeed anyone else does, it infuriates me that people can simply ignore a word's definition and use it to mean something else entirely. Like I said - it defeats the point of definitions.

 

They are lavishing the ruling class with liberal amounts of the people's money I guess. Who knows with the left? Don't try to understand them, just point and laugh.

 

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Liberty is authority over and responsibility for SELF. Liberty has a voluntary nature. Liberty employs no external authority.

Perhaps reading more slowly or even out loud might help.

 

Your choice of the word "distribution" says more than the balance of your post. In my opinion, it doesn't say anything good.

 

But you haven't done that since there are no Liberals that I'm aware of that would every assume that an existing system is perfect. It's like saying that if we found a pink Unicorn on Venus, then that would prove the existence of God as a Pink Unicorn. It's an absurd case. What makes you think that a liberal still wouldn't want to change that system? You're assuming some kind of Utopian idea that doesn't exist and isn't even sought.

The Liberal notion that founded this country was a change from the authoritarianism of the Monarchy. The so-called Divine Right of Kings. Liberty is the natural outcome of that kind of change. It's freedom from the authority of a Monarch. Certainly Liberals embrace Liberty. The word's are synonymous. Liberty is the result of change. It's the Freedom FROM something that prevents your freedom from taking place. However to think that Liberty is something static is near sighted. Freedom and Liberty always need to be extended to those that don't have it. Jefferson is credited with having said; "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". It's earliest version is 4th July, 1817, 42d year," Bennington Vermont Gazette, July 8, 1817, p. 2: "..."let your motto be 'eternal vigilance is the price we pay for liberty"

That's because preserving the status quo, doesn't serve the purposes of Liberty for all. which is the goal. That is the stated purpose here; "With Liberty and Justice for All". Existing institutions blocked that very idea for many years. Change is needed to bring that idea to those that don't have it. When I say the Liberal embraces change, what I'm saying is that he doesn't fear it for the sake of tradition or existing institutions that block Liberty.

I see. Is Conservatism peculiar to Anlgo-Saxon's? Is it exclusionary (in general) to others? It does seem to be the case in America. Conservatism here is very white.

Conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values. Again, I can refer to Hayek who points out that “Connected with the conservative distrust of the new and the strange is its hostility to internationalism and its proneness to a strident nationalism. Here is another source of its weakness in the struggle of ideas. It cannot alter the fact that the ideas which are changing our civilization respect no boundaries. But refusal to acquaint one’s self with new ideas merely deprives one of the powers of effectively countering them when necessary. The growth of ideas is an international process, and only those who fully take part in the discussion will be able to exercise a significant influence. It is no real argument to say that an idea is un-American, or un-German, nor is a mistaken or vicious ideal better for having been conceived by one of our
compatriots.” They were even willing to fight a civil war to preserve the institution of slavery.They fought against the woman’s right to vote. They fought against civil rights. In fact they fight against every attempt at challenging the authority of an existing institution. They detest anything they perceive as radical change that poses a threat to the status quo.

That's not an exception that disproves anything. In fact it's the exception that proves the rule. The exception that proves the rule is generally misunderstood. The Latin original of this saying dates back over two millennia to Cicero. Exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis. and is interpreted to mean ‘exception confirms the rule in the cases not excepted’

It means if you make an exception to a rule, a rule must exist. If you say “in case of fire students may use the emergency exits” it is clear that the rule is that normally students are not supposed to use those exits. If we have a statement like 'entry is free of charge on Sundays', we can reasonably assume that, as a general rule, entry is charged for. So, from that statement, here's our rule: You usually have to pay to get in. The exception on Sunday is demonstrating that the rule exists. It isn't testing whether the incorrect rule 'you have to pay' is true or not, and it certainly isn't proving that incorrect rule to be true. Your exception simply proves that conservatives want to undo the change that they oppose on conservative on principle and go back to the system that existed earlier. They offer nothing to replace the thing they would repeal. It's a return to square one. Preserving the institution, by opposing any change.


It's true that conservatives want to repeal Obamacare, which presents a change to the status quo. What they are fighting for is a return to the system that existed prior to the Affordable Care Act. That's simply going backward to where we were before.

 

In the US a "liberal" is a person who adheres to neo-conservative policies while simultaneously holding neo-conservatives in an esteem less than that given a common toad. It really holds no meaning at all in current usage short of 'a member of the Democratic Party'. Attempting to draw any more meaning than that out of it just results in contradictions out the yang.

 

How is that a superior consideration? Are you suggesting that an immoral position is preferred? What is your calculus for determining what is "best"? Do you advocate Consequential Moral reasoning or Catagorical Moral reasoning? One says that what is best for the greatest number is the best moral position. The other states that the morality of a position exists for it's own sake and is morally worthy goes beyond self-interest. Kant has a demanding conception of morality. To act freely is not to choose the best means to a given end. It's to choose the end itself for its own sake. When we act as Means, to the realization of ends outside us, we are instruments rather than authors of the purposes we pursue. When we act autonomously, according to a law we give ourselves, we cease to be instruments for purposes outside us, and we do something for its own sake. We become Ends in ourselves. This capacity to act freely is what gives life it’s special dignity. Respecting human dignity means regarding persons not just as means, but also as ends in themselves. This is why it’s wrong to use people for the sake of other peoples well-being or happiness. So what gives an action its moral worth? What makes an action morally worthy, consists not in the consequences or results that flow from it, what makes an action morally worthy has to do with the motive. The intention for which the act is done. What matters is the motive. And the motive must be of a certain kind. Do the right thing for the right reason. If you're acting out of self-interest then there is no moral worth to your actions. The store owner that gives a young boy the correct change for a purchase because he's worried about how his customers might react is doing the right thing, but for all the wrong reasons. He should give the boy the right change because it's the right thing to do. Not for what he might gain by doing it.

I think I've just shown you that that idea is wrong. It isn't the results that make the issue morally worthy. It's the motive behind it.

And that's the difference between you and I. Good and horrible are subjective terms. What you find as a good result, I may see as horrid. Why would I think that your good results are in fact "good". By who's definition are they actually "good"? Good for who? Me? Do they serve an interest outside of my own? I can see nothing that persuades me to accept ideas that harm people as being good. I'm not a Christian, and I don't subscribe to any religion, but I think most of the teachings of the Christian faith would agree with me. The teachings of Christ were not about the serving of self-interest.

Yeah...I can see that. I think the last thing I want running this country or dictating policy is somebody with a Machiavellian outlook. We had that with Dick Cheney and it didn't serve us very well. The dictionary offers this as synonymous to Machiavellianism.
Synonyms cutthroat, immoral, unprincipled, unconscionable, unethical, unscrupulous.

Related Words: merciless, pitiless, remorseless, ruthless; crooked, deceitful, dishonest, jackleg, knavish; corrupt, debased, debauched, decadent, degenerate, degraded, demoralized, depraved, dissipated, libertine, licentious, profligate; cheapjack, dog-eat-dog, opportunistic; calculating, scheming, sharp.

Suggestive of or characterized by expediency, deceit, and cunning.

being or acting in accordance with the principles of government analyzed in Machiavelli's The Prince, in which political expediency is placed above morality and the use of craft and deceit to maintain the authority and carry out the policies of a ruler is described.

characterized by subtle or unscrupulous cunning, deception, expediency, or dishonesty: "He resorted to Machiavellian tactics in order to get ahead."

Motivation[edit]

A 1992 review described Machiavellian motivation as related to cold selfishness and pure instrumentality, and those high on the trait were assumed to pursue their motives (e.g. sex, achievement, sociality) in duplicitous ways. More recent research on the motivations of high Machs compared to low Machs found that they gave high priority to money, power, and competition and relatively low priority to community building, self-love, and family concerns. High Machs admitted to focusing on unmitigated achievement and winning at any cost.

So...I guess if you find that appealing we have nothing further to discuss. A Machiavellian is more than willing to use any device necessary to achieve his own personal ambition at the expense of anybody or anything that might get in the way. Asking "what's in it for me" doesn't strike me as a question that holds any moral worth. It's pretty clear that your political views are influenced by total self-interest.

 

I don't know. What demonstrates the statement as true? You're saying that this is totally correct. Would you demonstrate the truth of that claim?

 

Right. You're an ideologue. Congratulations. Give my regards to Nozick.

You're hung up on the idea that Liberalism would remain in the same place it did in the 18th century. Why would you think that?

Definitions: : belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress

a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class)

Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas such as free and fair elections, civil rights, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free trade, and private property.

Liberalism as a political movement spans the better part of the last four centuries, though the use of the word liberalism to refer to a specific political doctrine did not occur until the 19th century. Perhaps the first modern state founded on liberal principles, with no hereditary aristocracy, was the United States of America, whose Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights . . . among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," echoing John Locke's phrase "life, liberty, and property." A few years later, the French Revolution overthrew the hereditary aristocracy, with the slogan "liberty, equality, fraternity", and was the first state in history to grant universal male suffrage.

Liberal philosophy symbolizes an extensive intellectual tradition that has examined and popularized some of the most important and controversial principles of the modern world. Its immense scholarly and academic output has been characterized as containing "richness and diversity," but that diversity often has meant that liberalism comes in different formulations and presents a challenge to anyone looking for a clear definition. Which kind of defies the attempts made here by those that think there is some clear cut definition.

The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous adjectives that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the very term liberalism, including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, welfare-state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic, and institutional, to name a few. At its very root, liberalism is a philosophy about the meaning of humanity and society. Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as being individualist, egalitarian, meliorist, and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism, the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals, the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalizes local cultural differences.

Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have continued to support limited constitutional government while also advocating for state services and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for a greater role for government in the administration of economic affairs.

By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterize a stable social order. Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in the way that people think; in fact, their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonizes and minimizes conflicting views, but still allows those views to exist and flourish. For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree. From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to religious toleration, with Spinoza condemning "the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars". Toleration also played a central role in the ideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society will contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.

Hayek pointed out this: “When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work
sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.”

So...much of this is available on Wiki as a historical account of Liberalism. It's interesting how many conservatives and even Libertarians identify themselves in terms of Liberalism. Classical Liberal, etc. Liberalism is far too vast a concept to confine to one era, or idea. It's constantly evolving. It's work is never done. According to Hayek, "“Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and
progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.”

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are coordinated, but it is such
a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation,
invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal.

An important note is this: "Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts.” We can't demonstrate our beliefs as true. So why should they be imposed on others with different beliefs? After all, what demonstrates your values are the correct values?

The most significant thing about Liberalism, is that it's not a formalized ideology as shown above. It's all over the map. It' has no doctrine to follow. No dogma. No "Canon's such as conservatism, (The Conservative Mind by Russell Kirk). It's not foundationalist. It's not based on something that requires an irrational justification that demands yet another irrational justification to support a basis which requires yet another justification. Logic and reason matter. Not beliefs but facts that can be demonstrated or falsified. So...whatever you may think is the original idea of "Liberalism" denies the very nature of liberalism itself. It always changes.

 

Nahh...the contradiction spoke volumes. It amounts to esoteric obscurantism. So Liberty is authoritarian in its nature. It is AUTHORITY OVER and responsibility for Self. Liberty is responsibility for and authority over Self. Is Liberty responsible for the Self, or is the Self responsible for Liberty? And yet you say it's voluntary in nature. It can't be both at the same time. If it were you could voluntarily reject it, which according to what you're saying is not possible. That's a contradiction. It employs no external authority, yet authority nonetheless. So you're an authoritarian. Perhaps an Internal Authority? So you are a slave to your impulses? Do you agree with Kant whose conception of freedom is this:
To act freely is to act autonomously. And to act autonomously is to act according to a law I give myself.
What is the opposite of autonomy? He invents a term. Heteronomy. To act according to desires I haven’t chosen myself.
So....Freedom = autonomy. You'd agree with that right?

Example:
When we, like animals, seek after pleasure or the avoidance of pain, we aren’t really acting freely. We are acting as slaves to our impulses. Freedom is the opposite of necessity. “Obey your thirst” – Sprite commercial. That isn’t freedom. You’re obeying a command from a desire. Are you autonomous or not? You've described a Heteronomous existence whereby you are a slave to impulse.

 

A liberal is pretty much just someone who votes for the democratic party, much like a conservative is someone who votes for the Republican, or more social conservative (WASP) Tea party. That's it. They are not so much ideologies as party cheerleaders.

 

Avec plaisir Monseur - the statement in question was - "There is nothing "liberal" about a guy who want to force away 40% of a person's living and spend it on the ruling class."

The wording of that statement is clumsy enough to make it a little imprecise, but the sense is one of an unfair practice. The point is not that the specific claim is true of any identified person or group, but that such a thing is, on the face of it, demonstrably unfair. There may well be circumstances which necessitate such a practice, but in the absence of those qualifiers, taking 40% of someone's income by force, in order to make rich people richer, is regarded by most sensible people as an undesirable thing, and far removed from those qualities accepted as 'liberal'.

What I am demonstrating is that such a practice is unfair, and is not the characteristic of a person with liberal values. My argument all along has been, irrespective of political inclination or ideology, the adjective liberal only applies to people who exhibit those characterists defined as liberal in the non-political sense. E.g: Generosity, the acceptance of reform, etc. Which is why I think it is an incorrect term when simply used to denote a 'left wing' political allegiance. Conservatives can as easily be generous, accepting of reform, etc. It depends upon the person, not the ideology.

 

Firstly, I must thank you Adagio, because I really do appreciate this conversation about a variety of interesting topics which I really do love, like political theory and moral philosophy. Know that I respect your intelligence and value this, and I look forward for more interesting debates in the future.

Which is why I said, and perhaps I need to emphasize it again, that it is a hypothetical scenario. You are claiming that liberals are for change, and I'm saying that liberals are for freedom. This scenario shows where your reasoning fails because it would lead to liberals wanting to change away from the most liberal society possible. Besides, the name strongly does seem to imply freedom rather than liberty doesn't it? In fact, change just for change's sake is such an empty end that I seriously doubt anyone really subscribes to it. Nay, it is freedom that liberals seek -however they define freedom, and in seeking freedom they will often find that change will lead to more, but that is not true in all cases. Change isn't the goal, indeed it cannot really be a worthwhile goal to begin with. Liberty, as the name suggests, is their sought-after end.

Not necessarily, which is quite obvious. The various communist revolutions were a change, yet they didn't result in freedom.

It can, provided that the current system is one which provides freedom. What you are saying doesn't quite make sense. If liberals are capable of changing society to be more free, then that means society is capable of having a very free system, and that means that it can keep that free system, and that means that the free system is the status quo. Of course it can all be perfected, but only until a certain point, and that's when liberalism is forced to support the status quo because it serves liberty best.

No, not at all, but the Anglo-Saxon conservatism is one which differs slightly from other kinds of conservatism. With western I meant the conservative movements in western countries, which have much in common. I did that to make sure no one thought I was talking about Persian or Chinese conservatism, which is very different from western conservatisms.

Something must be sorted out here. Conservatism exists in several dichotomies, which are separate. First we have the 'pace' dichotomy in which conservatism together with reactionism and progressivism are the three paces which change in society can have: backwards, still, and forwards.

And then we have the ideology of conservatism, which unlike ideologies like liberalism and socialism, doesn't have a set goal. In fact, conservatism isn't in inherent conflict with either liberalism or socialism. I'd actually say that conservatism is just an understanding of the world, and that conservatism actually requires the input of another ideology with a goal -like liberalism in my case- and then the conservative world view is simply applied to that goal.

Which is what I'd say we have in the US. The conservatives (some at least) would actually more adequately be labeled liberal conservatives because they want freedom, but their world-view tells them that things like traditions strengthen freedom, and that too fast change is antithetical to it.

Also, it's an interesting observation that Hayek is in fact in the same tradition as Burke, and I'd label both as conservative liberals because both of them saw that experience is superior to rational speculation, that the spontaneous and self-regulated and unconsciously improved system will do a better job than the planned systems, all stemming from their belief of a faulty mankind. Also, I'd add that Adam Smith belongs in this group as well.

if you set up a rule as absolute, then proving it wrong really does prove it wrong. Or rather, it proves your rule is full of exceptions so that it can no longer be considered a rule but a general observation. An observation that is indeed true as far as conservatives in general oppose change, but which isn't correct because they do not do it just to oppose, but do have a reasoning behind it.

Their position is mostly that the systems which arise by themselves in a spontaneous manner, and which are regulated and improved by experience (like language) will do a far better job than a conscious effort to solve most problems. They are indeed not offering anything new in that sense, but they are offering something as an alternative.

But conservatives also propose things like school prayer and, what about the many policies enacted by George Bush and other conservative presidents?

As I said, it may be moral and certainly good-willed, but if the results are no good but in fact bad, I draw the conclusion that what's moral isn't necessarily the best. And I judge what's best by what serves the public good. It's an interesting observation that many actions we consider to be morally sound actually end up being contra-productive. An example would be sending free or cheap food and clothes to Africa, because local producers are unable to compete and thus it prevents their economy from growing and thus perpetuating their dependence on outside help. I'll also say that if one is aware of the negative consequences of one's good-willed actions, it's actually immoral to still do that act. Most are in ignorance though.

I am a utilitarian, a realist, and somewhat of a nihilist, perhaps that'll help you understand my reasoning. Basically, I view morality as being only within our minds, and that our sense of right and wrong can't be very well applied to reality. Were the world tailored to our morality, it would be a world in which all cute rabbits and other animals could be saved, but alas the world is totally separate from our morality, and in many cases we must do things contrary to what we consider just. It is for example not possible to save all kittens in every litter, as one wished when one was a child.

Again, the welfare of as many as possible is my goal. I realize that there's nothing absolute I can refer to proving that it's the true 'good' because as you say, it's all subjective. As I've said, I'm a nihilist, and I believe morality is just a useful human abstraction of which reality takes no notice, and that it doesn't really exist in any manner except in our minds. Thus, everything anyone considers good is just as valid as what the next person think is good, because they are derive from the same source. What I can do however is to try to appeal to the kind of morality that most people have, independent of what that morality is ultimately based upon. And I am convinced that most would agree that the public good is a very legitimate end.

I'm not about valuing self-interest over altruism morally, all I'm saying is that the results are what matters, and that's a kind of morality in itself.

Hence why I said "about these things", I am not a ruthless thug interested only in furthering my own position. What I mean by that is that Machiavellianism is an observation of reality. I am convinced reality is such as Machiavelli, and other political consequencialists and realists, described it. It has nothing to do with my morals per se, but I am applying the world-view on my objective to reach what I consider morally right. Basically I'm Machiavellian in the sense that I have the view that human nature isn't as noble as many would describe it, that I'm doubtful that peoples' good-will and sincerity solves things better than if they had a self interests to do so, et cetera. I have my goal, and I think that some bad things are justified in order to reach a greater good. The ends justify the means. As I've said above, it's better to kill the kittens and thus committing a bad act, than to let them live and overpopulate and cause other problems that will eventually lead to something worse than simply killing them. And if applied to society I view it as the task to create the best of possible societies given the very faulty humans we have to build it with. It's a very moral position in my view. It's all very related to the conservative world-view I described earlier.

A very lacking definition given that 'progress' is a meaningless concept if one doesn't state the desired direction, which in the case of liberals, is liberty. Again, they want liberty, and consequently they often want change for liberty's sake, but they don't want change for change's sake.

I'd rather say that some strains of liberalism fit that description, but liberals like Adam Smith, and Hayek certainly do not, nor do (most) of the founding fathers. Their views are based upon the assumption that the nature of man is flawed but fixed, and everything they are proposing are systems which constrain those flaws and make the our flawed nature and generally selfish goal word towards the public good. It is as Adam Smith not because of good-will that we get our bread from the baker, but because he serves his own interest by providing us with it: because he operates in a system which forces him to indirectly do good to all whilst only seeking good for himself. This is also why the founders were see keen on separations of powers, because they viewed mankind as fallible and realized checks and balances are needed to mitigate our flaws.

yes indeed, but I will again take some time to explain to you that there are two different kinds of thought. One which views humanity as essentially good, and which sees fair elections, and freedom in general as ends in themselves. And the other view is that which has a view of a fallible mankind, and which sees rights justified only because they serve the public good. I am of the former view.

Private property isn't justified because it's some inherent human right, it's justified because the system which arise out of property rights is one which serves the public good very well. This right is not absolute, and it stops being valid when it starts to work against the public good. An example of that would be if one owned land that were of vital interest to the nation: of course his private property rights should be ignored in favor of the public good.

Another example of why rights aren't absolute is freedom of speech. You are not allowed to exercise it in the middle of the night if very loud, nor by screaming fire in a theater, nor if your speech is deemed cause public disorder which the authorities cannot handle. That's because at those points, freedom of speech no longer serves the public good, but works against it.

Oh, but it does have tenets, which unites all liberals. Liberals all seek freedom, the dividing factor is what they define freedom as. Some, like Hayek and most people on the right, view it as the absence of coercion, whilst people on the left typically also include freedom from limits imposed by circumstances. E. g, if you are born disabled you had a condition without you having any control or responsibility over it, and you are unfree by the limits and disadvantages being disabled carry with it, and in order to be free you must be compensated. example two is if you're too poor to buy something. Then the lack of money is restricting you.

The first definition of freedom is what the right has, the second is mostly used by the left. Socialism can actually be described as liberalism in this way, which explain how the social democrats in the US may call themselves liberal.

But in order to by autonomous, there must be a 'self' which can be free in the first place. I am making a deterministic argument now: what constitutes 'oneself' is always the product of what happened before, and that means one cannot ever truly be free because one is always bound by what has already happened. You would for example not be writing on this forum if you hadn't done A, and would have happened unless B did, and B required C to have happened, and on and on it goes until we find that with the conditions that were at the beginning of the world, everything that followed was already predetermined. Thus, there exists no truly independent self, and thus true freedom cannot exist.

That is, provided there aren't any factors of true randomness. As far as I know there isn't, but there might be some truly random factors with atoms or their parts. But I'm not knowledgeable in that field.

my god, five and a half pages on word! Got to be the longest post I've ever written!

edit: and it took my several hours to compose!

again, thank you for given me the opportunity to give probably the most comprehensive explaination of my understand of morals and political theory.

 

It's probably better if you didn't concern yourself with all that stuff anyway since the left - right, liberal - conservative thing is really just a false paradigm designed to confuse and to divide and conquer the masses. Think about the phrase "united we stand, divided we fall"! We're all so busy being a liberal or a conservative that we're not minding the store and we're allowing OUR EMPLOYEES to horse around on the clock! LOL!

 

Uh, great. All you've shown is saying "liberal" is too broad to accurately describe anything.

Thus why American "liberals" are more specifically what would be called social liberals, and some would be more of the social democrat type. The two kind of blur into each other.

 

LOL, thanks for that. It's just that I am interested in words and their usage, and as my future professional life will be at the bar, I am interested in using them as efficiently as I can. This was never intended by me to be a political discussion - I was merely seeking clarification.

 

=Mr. Swedish Guy;1063448166]

You make some good points. I would have to concede that Liberty is the sought after end result in most cases. However I think Communism was a rather extreme form of liberalism. Marx was an Enlightenment philosopher, although merely a footnote to the Enlightenment, and the change that he sought didn't result in the Liberty that most Liberals would approve of. So I wonder if "change" doesn't hold a higher priority than Liberty in some instances.

That's exactly what I'm pointing at. For my part the change I would seek would be that which expands freedom for those that don't have it.

This I don't agree with. What would be the point at which Liberalism is perfected. How would you know when you had achieved it? Perfection of any system is unobtainable.

Is that different from German or French or Spanish conservatism?

I differentiate between ideology and philosophy. In this country at least, Conservatism is very much an ideology. It's a doctrine that has been laid out and shaped into "canon", by conservative writers and adopted by at least on President (Reagan). Liberalism has no such canon. There is no doctrine that is followed. Ideologies admit no new information. Liberalism is always open to new information. It's more a philosophy than an ideology. Conservatism, as Hayek points out, doesn't go anywhere. It never leads. It always follows. It never takes us in a new direction.

That's very much the ideas of Russell Kirk, but then his ideas were warmed over Burke. Hayek is very much Burkean. I am not a fan of Burke's. I'm more a fan of Paine's. But more to the point, as a traditionalist-conservative, which I think Burke is, he thinks about social change in a cautious and incremental way and characterizes the social contract as binding on those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be born. Paine would vehemently disagree, as would I. The anti-Enlightenment (Burke) differs from the study of the Enlightenment because traditional conservatives of the Burkean school reject the idea of formulating a theory upon which to base society. Their views can be more accurately characterized as attitudes or dispositions. Social change is possible, but it must reflect the thinking of "the man on the Clapham omnibus." The average man. Thinkers like Burke place individuals as subordinate to society and its traditions. Therefore, the anti-Enlightenment is a rejection of both of the central tenets of the Enlightenment -- the commitment to individual rights, and to science and reason.

Burkes idea of conservatism as valuing tradition is very different from the libertarian conservatism of Robert Nozick. The libertarian conservatism of Robert Nozick is anti-statist, anti-government, and resistance to authority being imposed on you, hence the notion of libertarian conservatism. Burke is a traditionalist conservative. He thinks that tradition is the core of human experience, and he thinks whatever wisdom we have about politics is embedded in the traditions that we have inherited. "They have served us over centuries," this is his view writing at the end of the eighteenth century, "they have served us for centuries. They have evolved in a glacial way."

Also, Burke has a very, very different view of the idea of rights. They're first of all, they are inherited. They're not the product of reason or any contrived theoretical formulations. They're inherited. "You will observe that from Revolution Society to the Magna Carta it has been the uniform policy of our constitution to claim and assert our liberties as an entailed inheritance derived to us from our forefathers, and to be transmitted to posterity — as an estate specially belonging to the people of this kingdom, without any reference whatever to any other more general or prior right. By this means our constitution preserves a unity in so great a diversity of its parts. We have an inheritable crown, an inheritable peerage, and a House of Commons and a people inheriting privileges, franchises, and liberties from a long line of ancestors."

So what we think of when we talk about rights for Burke, first of all, they're not human rights or natural rights for him, they are the rights of Englishmen. They are the rights of Englishmen; they are particular rights. They're the result of a particular tradition. The idea that there could be universal rights doesn't make any sense to him. It's not an intelligible question, as far as Burke is concerned, to assay what Rawls would say, what rights would we create for all people in some abstract setting? It doesn't make any sense to him. And those rights, above all, are limited. Again, just as our knowledge of the world is limited so our rights, in the normative sense, are limited. "Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants. Men have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom. Among these wants is to be reckoned the want out of civil society, of a sufficient restraint upon their passions." We have a right to be restrained, a very different notion than a right to create things over which we have authority, a right to be restrained. "Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves, and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue. In this sense the restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights."

So we have a right to be restrained. We have a right, most importantly, that others are going to be restrained, and that our passion should be controlled is something that he insists is an important part of what we should think of under the general heading of what it is that people have rights to. I don't think this is going to sit well with the Libertarian, and I know it doesn't with this Liberal.

[/QUOTE]

It doesn't prove it wrong. It proves that the rule exists. I think that was pointed out in the example that I gave. If we have a statement like 'entry is free of charge on Sundays', we can reasonably assume that, as a general rule, entry is charged for. So, from that statement, here's our rule:
You usually have to pay to get in. The exception on Sunday is demonstrating that the rule exists. It isn't testing whether the incorrect rule 'you have to pay' is true or not, and it certainly isn't proving that incorrect rule to be true.

I would simply question the reasoning as I have many times in the past, and will continue to do so in the future. What I found is that the reasoning is always foundational which of course is essential to conservative thought. Conservatism, like all ideologies requires a foundation. However there is no foundation to the foundation that justifies itself. Trying to locate it leads to infinite regress, or at best circular reasoning. I think that foundationalism has been dismissed quite a while ago. Floating Foundationalism that we see today, comes in many different varieties. But its basic move is to accept some statement or theory—paradigm, linguistic framework, form of life, belief or what have you—without justification, and to then use it as a foundation upon which to justify everything else. In so doing, this Floating Foundationalism retains the demand, the purpose, and sometimes even the logical structure of justification. But it leaves the foundations themselves floating in mid-air. It acknowledges that justification is ultimately grounded upon something that is itself ungrounded and, , irrational. But it advises us not to question these things, but to ‘commit’ ourselves to them instead—and to proceed as if nothing has changed. The only real difference between Floating Foundationalism and traditional bedrock foundationalism is that Floating Foundationalism does not even pretend that its foundations are indubitably true or that the theories that are ‘grounded’ upon them always follow with logical necessity. So, I'm compelled to question the reasoning rather than accept it at face value.

But that's not demonstrably true. I don't think we can simply use language as an isolated example to prove a point. Language can afford itself the luxury of taking time to evolve glacially. Our problems have a more immediate concern. Also, doing nothing to solve a problem doesn't offer an alternative. That's simply not acting out of fear.

Of course they do. However that's an emotional appeal rather than a logical or reasoned understanding of the first Amendment. Conservatives that call for this have no understanding of the Amendment, no matter how much it's explained to them in the most basic and elementary terms. Even in arguing with them on this, they completely misquote it to alter it's meaning. As for Bush, I'm not sure how many conservatives would consider him a conservative. He spent money outrageously, borrowing from the Chinese to fund two wars. Massively increased our deficit. I don't know what Bush would be called today. It always seemed to me that Cheney ran the show.

But "good" and "bad" are subjective terms. If I see something as good, and you see it as bad, or vice versa, who's right and who has the moral high ground here? How you and I determine results are very likely quite different. I can't imagine immoral results as being good. Good for who?

Then you subscribe to consequentialist morality. You're a Utilitarian.

Are you a classical utilitarian? Like Bentham? Or a Neo-utilitarian like Mill? According to the Utilitarian Bentham, the right thing to do individually or collectively is to maximize the over-all level of happiness. “The greatest good for the greatest number”. The Libertarian Nozick rejected Utilitarianism you know. Perhaps you aren't a Libertarian. I'm curious because I've had this discussion with somebody else here regarding Utilitarianism, and he was of the mind that Mill was the foundation of Utilitarianism. He wasn't. Bentham was. And Bentham had no use for individual rights, which is precisely why Nozick who was very big on individual rights rejected his ideas. So when you call yourself a Utilitarian, are speaking in the Classical sense of the philosophy as laid out by Bentham?

Yeah...I got that from an earlier post. I don't subscribe to Consequentialist morality. I think there is a Catagorical Imperative that we can locate. Kant thought so, and I agree. Consequentialist morality can and was easily used to justify segregation and slavery in the South. The what serves the interests of the most people is the morally acceptable thing to do. That can amount to tyranny of the majority, which it did in the South. I see no moral worth in that.

I'll have to continue this later. It's very late. good talking with you.