Author | Thread |
|
10/10/2008 12:40:39 PM · #1 |
For those who may actually be interested in the philosophical differences between liberalism and conservatism, following are the basics. Discussions on the merits of these philosophies are welcome. Namecalling on the current candidates, has several threads now in progress for those posts. This is intended for philisophical discourse. Of course there may be no interest in that kind of banter.
Liberalism
Conservatism
Article
The liberal philosophical system
â€Â¢ Epistemology: Reason. Knowledge comes from human beings. "Inalienable rights" are innate in human beings, as a result of their being reasoning beings.
â€Â¢ Metaphysics: Subjective reality. Liberals don't believe that what is true for one person is true for another person.
â€Â¢ Ethics: Do things for the good of society as a whole. Liberals place more importance on society as a whole instead of individuals. Helping the less fortunate is also important. Liberals deal with people in groups rather than as individuals.
â€Â¢ Economics: Socialism. Liberals believe that an uneven distribution of wealth is not ethical, so another mechanism -- in this case, the state -- must allocate that wealth.
â€Â¢ Agency: Determinism. Liberals believe that things happen outside the control of human beings and that they have no control of what occurs in the world.
The conservative philosophical system
â€Â¢ Epistemology: God. "Inalienable rights" come from God, who created human beings and gave them the capacity to reason.
â€Â¢ Metaphysics: Objective reality. There is a knowable truth that is universal for all people (this truth, incidentally, is usually the same as the politician's truth).
â€Â¢ Ethics: Self-interest. A thing should be done by an individual for the good of that individual. Things done for the good of the individual will necessarily be done for the good of society (Adam Smith's "invisible hand").
â€Â¢ Economics: Capitalism. Conservatives believe that capitalism is the most just of all the economic systems. A person should work for what he earns and nothing less or more.
â€Â¢ Agency: Free will. There exists nothing outside the control of a human being's free will. There are no excuses because everything is the result of a person's good or bad choices.
Article 2
Message edited by author 2008-10-10 12:41:50. |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:02:23 PM · #2 |
My lifes experiences have led me to the path of conservatism.
"The conservative philosophical system
â€Â¢ Epistemology: God. "Inalienable rights" come from God, who created human beings and gave them the capacity to reason.
â€Â¢ Metaphysics: Objective reality. There is a knowable truth that is universal for all people (this truth, incidentally, is usually the same as the politician's truth).
â€Â¢ Ethics: Self-interest. A thing should be done by an individual for the good of that individual. Things done for the good of the individual will necessarily be done for the good of society (Adam Smith's "invisible hand").
â€Â¢ Economics: Capitalism. Conservatives believe that capitalism is the most just of all the economic systems. A person should work for what he earns and nothing less or more.
â€Â¢ Agency: Free will. There exists nothing outside the control of a human being's free will. There are no excuses because everything is the result of a person's good or bad choices. "
I see God as the originator of my "inalienable rights" and the creator of my capcity to reason. I view the world as there being a knowable universal truth (like Platos absolutes). My ethics are based on self interest and see that what is good for me is good for all. I see capitalism as the most fair and just of economic systems as it rewards effort and denies laziness. I have long held a free will position and truly believe that a person's condition is the direct result of thier choices or those of their parents.
|
|
|
10/10/2008 01:18:11 PM · #3 |
A lot makes sense if you believe many people (or even most people) fall into either one of those two philosophies.
|
|
|
10/10/2008 01:18:59 PM · #4 |
I tend to waffle when it comes to this sort of thing... and my dilemma comes not from the philisophical application of the terms...(I would call myself conservative), but in the practical application and particularly when the extremes take over... this is particularly scary when the religious right comes into play (I would call myself more moderate)
I'm sure there are others that feel that way... pushed to the liberal side when the conservative side seem to go too far? |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:30:12 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Gordon: A lot makes sense if you believe many people (or even most people) fall into either one of those two philosophies. |
I agree. One reason for the research and subsequent post. I have argued with many here in DPC rant on a number of topics and truly wanted to understand how some could think and reason as they do. Once I understood the basic philosophical differences between liberals:
The liberal philosophical system
â€Â¢ Epistemology: Reason. Knowledge comes from human beings. "Inalienable rights" are innate in human beings, as a result of their being reasoning beings.
â€Â¢ Metaphysics: Subjective reality. Liberals don't believe that what is true for one person is true for another person.
â€Â¢ Ethics: Do things for the good of society as a whole. Liberals place more importance on society as a whole instead of individuals. Helping the less fortunate is also important. Liberals deal with people in groups rather than as individuals.
â€Â¢ Economics: Socialism. Liberals believe that an uneven distribution of wealth is not ethical, so another mechanism -- in this case, the state -- must allocate that wealth.
â€Â¢ Agency: Determinism. Liberals believe that things happen outside the control of human beings and that they have no control of what occurs in the world.
and conservatives:
The conservative philosophical system
â€Â¢ Epistemology: God. "Inalienable rights" come from God, who created human beings and gave them the capacity to reason.
â€Â¢ Metaphysics: Objective reality. There is a knowable truth that is universal for all people (this truth, incidentally, is usually the same as the politician's truth).
â€Â¢ Ethics: Self-interest. A thing should be done by an individual for the good of that individual. Things done for the good of the individual will necessarily be done for the good of society (Adam Smith's "invisible hand").
â€Â¢ Economics: Capitalism. Conservatives believe that capitalism is the most just of all the economic systems. A person should work for what he earns and nothing less or more.
â€Â¢ Agency: Free will. There exists nothing outside the control of a human being's free will. There are no excuses because everything is the result of a person's good or bad choices.
then alot made more sense. Even from such simple differences as "determinisn" vs "free will". As each of these opposing positions are ingrained in ones view, it would characteristically influence how they saw associated items/events. Or even further the metaphysics of objective vs subjective reality.
Message edited by author 2008-10-10 13:35:03. |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:34:19 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Flash: Originally posted by Gordon: A lot makes sense if you believe many people (or even most people) fall into either one of those two philosophies. |
I agree. One reason for the research and subsequent post. I have argued with many here in DPC rant on a number of topics and truly wanted to understand how some could think and reason as they do. |
I think you misunderstand me. A lot makes sense about your prior posts, to find out you view the world in such black and white/ either/or, simplistic terms.
|
|
|
10/10/2008 01:38:15 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Eyesup:
I'm sure there are others that feel that way... pushed to the liberal side when the conservative side seem to go too far? |
Vice versa.
I have concerns about McCain. I have concerns about Obama. What bothers me is there are people (as, once again, evidenced by this forum) who throw their blinders on when it comes to their particular candidate. So much of the "I'm right you're wrong" mentality here rather than, "I have some deep concerns about the person I'm voting for such as < insert concerns here > but here's why I voting for them: < insert reasons here >. If you voice no concerns about either one of these guys and their running mates you are nothing more than the sheep you accuse the other side of being. |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:38:53 PM · #8 |
The term is a rat's nest, of course, making discussion difficult. See the nested information from "Liberalism" (same link and source):
American versus European use of the term "liberalism"
Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. (See Liberalism worldwide) One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1962), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."[5]
According to Girvetz and Minogue writing in Encyclopædia Britannica, "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook."[6] Continental Europeans often apply the term "liberal" mainly to an individual's economic liberties, such as free markets and hence they have many positions in common with American conservatives.
In a bi-dimensional projection of the political spectrum on two axis - one corresponding to the social values and the other one to economic (or fiscal) values, American liberalism can be seen as belonging to the left on the first axis and on the left/center-left on the second axis. The term can thus be ambiguous. Someone on the right/center-right on the economic axis but on the left on the social values axis is labelled as a right wing libertarian (or simply libertarian in the United States).
In late 20th century and early 21st century political discourse in the United States, "liberalism" has come to mean support for freedom of speech, separation of church and state, reproductive rights for women, civil liberties, equal rights for gay people, a welcoming attitude to immigrants, equal rights for the disabled, and multilateralism and international institutions. All of these aims are mostly shared by British and other European liberals. American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty by government intervention, affordable quality health care for all and a progressive income tax, positive role for organised labour, and the protection of the environment. In Europe these views are shared by Social Democrats, but not necessarily by liberals, especially in France and continental Europe. Britain's liberals would agree with most of these positions, but affirmative action would be described as an illiberal policy.
However, there are also major distinctions on between modern American liberalism and the European notion of social democracy, specifically, the lack of socialist influences. Firstly, while Socialists generally follow the principle of maximin (and believe in extensive government intervention to achieve it) American liberals are more likely to limit intervention to the point where it guarantees a decent quality of life, and decent public services to working families and poor workers. Secondly, American liberals are less likely to countenance socialization of private-sector industries as a solution to any problem; this is in contrast to socialists, who often have sought or implemented nationalization of industries in their countries. Third, American liberalism views concentration of power in a similar light as socialism views the concentration of wealth; hence, American liberalism attempts to achieve a fairer distribution of power in society, just as socialism attempts to achieve a fairer distribution of wealth.
Though the British and Canadian liberal parties have an understanding of liberalism similar to those of the United States, the political discourse in Australia is different to both America's and Europe's. The Australian political party known as The Liberal Party holds an ideology which would be called conservative in most other countries. The United Kingdom's Liberal Democrats have an understanding of liberalism somewhat similar to that of modern American liberalism, although without the communalist[clarify] aspect. The Liberal Party of Canada also shares similar views to that of modern American liberalism, but in a distinctive Canadian context.
[ edit ]
Demographics of American liberals
While it is difficult to gather demographic information on ideological groups, some studies have been conducted. Liberalism remains most popular among those in academia and liberals commonly tend to be highly educated and relatively affluent. According to recent surveys, between 19% and 26% of the American electorate identify as liberal, versus moderate or conservative.[7] A 2004 study by the Pew Research Center identified 19% of Americans as liberal. According to the study, liberals were the most educated ideological demographic and were tied with the conservative sub-group, the "Enterprisers," for the most affluent group. Of those who identified as liberal, 49% were college graduates and 41% had household incomes exceeding $75,000, compared to 27% and 28% as the national average, respectively.[8]
Liberalism also remains the dominant political ideology in academia, with 72% of full-time faculty identifying as liberal in a 2004 study.[9] The social sciences and humanities were most liberal, whereas business and engineering departments were the most conservative. The high educational attainment and prominence of liberal thought on American campuses can largely be attributed to a correlation between education and ideology. Generally, the more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to hold liberal beliefs.[10] In the 2000, 2004 and 2006 elections, the vast majority of liberals voted in favor of the Democrats, though liberals may also show support for the Greens.[11][12][13] |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:39:44 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by Flash: Originally posted by Gordon: A lot makes sense if you believe many people (or even most people) fall into either one of those two philosophies. |
I agree. One reason for the research and subsequent post. I have argued with many here in DPC rant on a number of topics and truly wanted to understand how some could think and reason as they do. |
I think you misunderstand me. A lot makes sense about your prior posts, to find out you view the world in such black and white/ either/or, simplistic terms. |
I am a simple man. |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:40:07 PM · #10 |
Amazing.
There are some liberal ideas I agree with, and there are some conservative ideas I agree with, and I always reserve the right to grow and change my agreement with those ideas on case by case, life experience by life experience, person by person, year by year, day by day basis.
May as well strike me down now.
Message edited by author 2008-10-10 13:41:14. |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:41:26 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Flash: Originally posted by Gordon: Originally posted by Flash: Originally posted by Gordon: A lot makes sense if you believe many people (or even most people) fall into either one of those two philosophies. |
I agree. One reason for the research and subsequent post. I have argued with many here in DPC rant on a number of topics and truly wanted to understand how some could think and reason as they do. |
I think you misunderstand me. A lot makes sense about your prior posts, to find out you view the world in such black and white/ either/or, simplistic terms. |
I am a simple man. |
Indeed. |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:49:03 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by zeuszen: The term is a rat's nest, of course, making discussion difficult. See the nested information from "Liberalism" (same link and source): |
Although it is true that definitions can confuse and thwart the discourse and further that this site sees input from around the globe, thus increasing the need for definition clarification, the sense I have is that many posters in the political threads inhabit the US/Canada/UK thus this section "The United Kingdom's Liberal Democrats have an understanding of liberalism somewhat similar to that of modern American liberalism, although without the communalist[clarify] aspect. The Liberal Party of Canada also shares similar views to that of modern American liberalism, but in a distinctive Canadian context. " might apply as a basis for beginning. |
|
|
10/10/2008 01:51:27 PM · #13 |
What an absurd list! Among the high/lowlights:
Originally posted by Flash: Liberals don't believe that what is true for one person is true for another person. |
Does not compute. If it were true, how could it apply to people as a group?
Originally posted by Flash: â€Â¢ Ethics: Self-interest. A thing should be done by an individual for the good of that individual. Things done for the good of the individual will necessarily be done for the good of society. |
While I'm sure any felon would agree with that principle, I doubt it would apply to conservatives seeking to ban abortion and gay rights for the good of society.
Originally posted by Flash: â€Â¢ Agency: Determinism. Liberals believe that things happen outside the control of human beings and that they have no control of what occurs in the world.
â€Â¢ Agency: Free will. There exists nothing outside the control of a human being's free will. There are no excuses because everything is the result of a person's good or bad choices. |
Determinism and free will are concepts of religion, not government authority, and the two are not mutually exclusive– you can have free will as a person and still not have control over the environment or other external factors (flapping your arms will not result in flight no matter how strong your will). Indeed, the entire list looks like an attempt to define liberal and conservative in a religious context, which is patently absurd. Plenty of liberals are devout believers, and I'm sure there are many atheists and/or competing gods among conservatives.
|
|
|
10/10/2008 02:07:32 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Flash: Originally posted by zeuszen: The term is a rat's nest, of course, making discussion difficult. See the nested information from "Liberalism" (same link and source): |
Although it is true that definitions can confuse and thwart the discourse and further that this site sees input from around the globe, thus increasing the need for definition clarification, the sense I have is that many posters in the political threads inhabit the US/Canada/UK thus this section "The United Kingdom's Liberal Democrats have an understanding of liberalism somewhat similar to that of modern American liberalism, although without the communalist[clarify] aspect. The Liberal Party of Canada also shares similar views to that of modern American liberalism, but in a distinctive Canadian context. " might apply as a basis for beginning. |
Like so many of us, I've stumbled over the lack of a shared interpretation of such terms in the course of events, particularly on this continent, with the term being used in the sense you refer (above) by some, then, overwhelmingly, as a dirty word from so many voices south of the border.
Message edited by author 2008-10-10 14:08:01. |
|
|
10/10/2008 02:11:24 PM · #15 |
I was going to post that these concepts of liberal/conservative are overwhelmingly American (note the Wiki articles even say as much in the titles), and that the definitions have no meaning in the rest of the Western world. Canadian Conservatives, for example, hold no particular religious affiliation (recall that 24% of the Canadian population is atheist, and you will see the impossibility of this, considering that we are apparently about to elect a Conservative government on Tuesday for the second time in a row).
I'm not even sure it's true for the US though. A simple Google search brings up lots of conservative atheists for example. And Christopher Hitchens, festering gadfly in the side of the religious right, is well known to be a political conservative on many issues (though still a leftist), a hawk, and a supporter of the current US policy in Iraq.
Edit to clarify Hitchens' position.
Message edited by author 2008-10-10 14:13:29. |
|
|
10/10/2008 02:15:33 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by scalvert: Determinism and free will are concepts of religion.. |
Yet many who do not hold a religious view have strong dispositions towards either choice vs fate. One does not need a God or godhead to either be self accountable or the perpetual victim. |
|
|
10/10/2008 02:26:05 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by scalvert: What an absurd list! Among the high/lowlights: |
Your post is in the singular. My original post had at least 3 presentations of these philosophies. |
|
|
10/10/2008 02:42:42 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Gordon: I think you misunderstand me. A lot makes sense about your prior posts, to find out you view the world in such black and white/ either/or, simplistic terms. |
Oh, snap! |
|
|
10/10/2008 03:19:22 PM · #19 |
I thought your breakdown was pretty useful, at least for the current incarnation of American politics. It explains the conservative principles that have been proven to cause suffering all over the world, and to fail egregiously in the last eight years, when they've had the most sway.
Except for the last one. Conservatives have their share of Determinism (the Apocalypse, for example) and Liberals have their share of Free Will (against legislating morality, for example). |
|
|
10/10/2008 03:33:39 PM · #20 |
I more like the distinction between the two that came from that TED institute video I posted a while back.
Liberals are interested in preserving the rights of the underpriviledged at the risk of social chaos.
Conservatives are interested in preserving social order at the risk of neglecting the underpriviledged.
Both have their pros. Both have their cons. Either, in extremis, can lead to great harm.
I definitely dislike the idea that somehow all Christians are conservative. Complete BS and a hijacking of my religion. |
|
|
10/10/2008 03:42:34 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by posthumous: I thought your breakdown was pretty useful, at least for the current incarnation of American politics. It explains the conservative principles that have been proven to cause suffering all over the world, and to fail egregiously in the last eight years, when they've had the most sway. |
Not sure if this type of comparison exists, however I would think that a review of various governments (maybe over the last 500 years) around the world and their application of either a liberal or conservative philosophy, and how that played out in their prosperity and for what duration, might be enlightening. For example, many countries have been the premiere world power at some point in history. Spain, Portegul, England, France, Germany, as well as earlier Asian Dynasties and what type of philosophical view did they have at the height of their power and what type did they have when they declined? Likewise, of the world powers today (China, India, EU, US, etc) what kinds of philosophy do they employ and are they emerging into a power or declining from it? As an example, the US is becoming more liberal and declining as a world power as it seems to not have the stomach for any sustained conservative action. Powers like China seem to becoming a dominating world force and are moving towards a capitalistic economy.
|
|
|
10/10/2008 03:46:20 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Flash: the US is becoming more liberal and declining as a world power as it seems to not have the stomach for any sustained conservative action. |
... or as a result of same. |
|
|
10/10/2008 07:37:01 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Flash: Originally posted by posthumous: I thought your breakdown was pretty useful, at least for the current incarnation of American politics. It explains the conservative principles that have been proven to cause suffering all over the world, and to fail egregiously in the last eight years, when they've had the most sway. |
Not sure if this type of comparison exists, however I would think that a review of various governments (maybe over the last 500 years) around the world and their application of either a liberal or conservative philosophy, and how that played out in their prosperity and for what duration, might be enlightening. For example, many countries have been the premiere world power at some point in history. Spain, Portegul, England, France, Germany, as well as earlier Asian Dynasties and what type of philosophical view did they have at the height of their power and what type did they have when they declined? Likewise, of the world powers today (China, India, EU, US, etc) what kinds of philosophy do they employ and are they emerging into a power or declining from it? As an example, the US is becoming more liberal and declining as a world power as it seems to not have the stomach for any sustained conservative action. Powers like China seem to becoming a dominating world force and are moving towards a capitalistic economy. |
Even thinking of the U.S. as an Empire/Colonial Power is anti-American, imho. We were supposed to be a beacon, not a tractor beam. The best thing that could happen to the U.S. would be to "decline" as a "world power." Then maybe we could get back to being a free country.
Btw, there is so little liberalism in world history that you could never do such a comparison, not that I use military might as a measure of success anyway. |
|
|
10/11/2008 10:38:37 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Flash: For those who may actually be interested in the philosophical differences between liberalism and conservatism, following are the basics. Discussions on the merits of these philosophies are welcome. Namecalling on the current candidates, has several threads now in progress for those posts. This is intended for philisophical discourse. Of course there may be no interest in that kind of banter. |
Philosophical discourse only: 2 of your sources are definitely opinion (a blog, and a supposedly unbiased high school student news source). They are not peer-reviewed and reference no outside sources. My opinion? So what. I could write an opinion piece saying the exact opposite of both and it would be equally meritorious.
Dr. Achoo's TED video is, at minimum, a better explanation of the difference between 'liberal' and 'conservative' as it is grounded in psychology and has outside sources.
At any rate, if you want true philosophical discourse, try starting with liberalism.
Its funny how, in this time and in this place, 'liberals' are both liberal and conservative and 'conservatives' are both conservative and liberal.
Message edited by L2 - Continue here. |
|