> Why do conservatives hate moral progress?
> If moral progress is bad, what evidence or arguments do conservatives have against it?

Do I understand you correctly, OP?

200 years ago, they had slaves, treated people of different races like shit, treated women like shit, etc. Today we find those things to be abominations.

In 50 years, they will find some out our current practices to be horrible, and will do things that seem very odd to us.

This moral progress thing is hard to reason about, but we can try.

The conservative's position is that the his current moral values (which may have only been mainstream in the past) represent the high point of moral value, and all subsequent moral progress is actually a decay.

Humans have a number of known biases and deficiencies of rational thought. One of them is that we do not have direct access to the actual built in values that make us feel good about love and butterflies and flowers and saving people; we can only guess at them by observing what we feel good about in this way.

Conservatives reject the possibility that they have an imperfect understanding of moral value, and therefore reject the possibility of moral progress. I find this position to be absurd, and would be very surprised to find any strong evidence for it.

Some more reasonable conservatives do understand that their conception of value may be flawed, but reject the current moral trajectory. I must then question why they oppose the development of a more rational society that would be in a better position to reason towards more perfect values.

This moral progress thing is very hard to think about, because when you see a better understanding of value, it looks like an incompatible and unacceptable set of values. The best we can do is understand this fact, and that becoming more rational will make it easier to move up the value gradient.

>>219
More or Less. Looking for a social conservative to answer, though. I'm not trying to be dismissive, patronizing, or anything, though, I'd just like some perspective.

Hopefully a /cwc/nazi will have the patience to read through.

Although I´m not that much of a social conservative, I certainly like their position more than the liberal one. I´ll try to answer as good as I can.

First a few words about moral progress: to an unskilled observer it may sound as a unequivocally positive thing, but the issue is more difficult than that. From Aristotle we know that any notion of progress presupposes a goal to which you are progressing, otherwise you would have no measure of how much you are progressing or regressing, or whether you are even progressing at all. So the crucial question is: what is the desired goal of this "moral progress" the social conservatives oppose? I take it to be hedonism: the view the the proper end of human life is to enjoy yourself as much as possible - "happiness for all!" - which is not that objectionable in itself (I don´t like it that much though), but all too often it is equated with pleasure - and anything that bars people from pleasing themselves in any conceivable way is decried as "evil" by these progressives.

You are certainly right that values in any given society change over time, and this is due to the interplay of various forces acting upon it, etc. But to say this is not enough. The thing about values is that they express what you (well-) value - what you consider to be good, desirable, or proper for a human being. And unless you are a very simplistic relativist (in that case no debate is possible or even worth having), you are going to consider some of these values higher than others, and this is true both for conservatives and progressives, as you can see in their mutual accusations of immorality.

Ultimately this talk of values usually ends up in a consideration of how to make a good society. Conservatives, with their talk of moral decay, aim for a stable and cohesive society with members who tend to be similar to each other, because that is a perquisite for a sense of community and successful cooperation in everyday life, and see the "progress" as deliberately disturbing the stability of society for the sake of some silly ideas of diversity or whatever. The progressives on the other hand tend to take Mill´s "one simple rule" of non-interference with the freedom of others for granted and think that if everyone guided themselves by that rule, we would all be free and happy. And that is IMO sadly and deeply mistaken.

Recommended reading: http://edge.org/conversation/what-makes-vote-republican

Alright, I'll bite. I'm just about as socially conservative as it gets.

>>I here again and again people decrying the so-called "moral decay" of this country, and that this will lead to decay and destruction.

That's funny, because I'm pretty sure that's a near universal thing that occurs in most countries. You interpret as conservatives wanting to stop "progress" because well, you're biased. You don't consider that from the other perspective, people like the way things are, people like their beliefs. They don't feel a constant need to tear down the existing situations. This may be why in poll after poll, conservatives are happier than liberals.

>>But morality is really a fluid thing; not even fifty years ago, mixed race relationships were often decried much the same way homosexuality is today. Once upon a time, marriage was arranged, and it wasn't entirely monogamous, either. On top of that is the fluidity of what's considered an "acceptable" age of consent. While I myself do agree that it's both better to err on the side of caution and that it's most often impossible for someone under the age of ~17 to rationally consent, the fluidity within different cultures with respect to this consideration easily explains, say, what's acceptable in the Japanese market and unacceptable to us.

Oh boy, the assumptions. This is a common error liberals make. Take an old position that is no longer popular, affix it to conservatives, and then say "See, this shit? Defend it!" The Democrats started the KKK. "OH, THAT WAS BEFORE THE PARTIES MAGICALLY SWITCHED POLARITY AT SOME INDETERMINATE TIME IN THE PAST!" Then why was the last sitting senator who was a member of the KKK, Robert Byrd who only died a couple of years ago a Democrat? Did the two parties switch immediately after his death? It's a bogus line of garbage to try to affix racism to conservatism, and you know it.

Next you bring up homosexuals. Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are all against gay marriage. Oh sure they'll dance with Ellen and she'll carefully avoid the topic while asking McCain about it, but his position is identical to theirs. Conservatives generally are either against it but for civil unions, or think it should be left up to the states.

The Westboro Baptist Church are all registered Democrats, and confirmed liberals. They donated to various Democratic political campaigns in the 80's and early 90's and Fred Phelps repeatedly ran for governor of Kansas as a Democrat. When they cut ties with Al Gore -who they had held fundraisers for- they called him a "fag pimp" and a "conservative darling". What's more, they're all civil rights attorneys. The biggest anti-gay hate group on the country are all liberals.

The very basis of your entire line of logic is a giant pile of horse shit.

>>I'm not even going to touch Newt Gingrich

If this is about his numerous infidelities, this isn't an issue of political party, this is an issue of political power. Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently fuck around on their spouses. I could bring up Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Elliot Spencer or Bill Clinton, and you could bring up as many conservative politicians pulling the same shit. The only difference is, the media tends to be sympathetic when a liberal politician does it, but scorn a supposedly moral conservative doing it. To give an example, I read an article that apologized to Anthony Weiner, and compared him favorably to Herman Cain. Meanwhile it spoke with scorn about what a vile bastard Cain was for cheating, even though none of the claims against him were ever proven.

>>Now, in my experience, most people like to point to Rome as an example

I'm glad you brought this up. When you refer to previous values, which do you mean? Because it can always be pointed back further in history to some supposedly more progressive civilization that had no problem with pederasty, rape or incest, yet I don't think you want to "progress" beyond those things.

Let me put it more bluntly. At one time, rape and murder were not illegal. You don't want those moral standards to be abolished, do you? Well then, congratulations, you've just seen through the eyes of a conservative. Those are things currently perceived as wrong by the majority, and they'd like to keep it that way, and if you heard someone say "But what's so bad about rape? Where do you get off trying to control what I can and cannot do? Don't you dare impose your morality on me!" You'd think it sounds as batshit insane as every asinine thing vomited out of the mouth of a progressive does to us.

>>I would like to point out that Rome didn't collapse until after it Christianized.

Or in other words, new values entered a civilization, and this change and progress destroyed it. Oh, because it was change you don't like you don't want to count it? If Rome had remained "conservative" and kept with it's pre-existing values, it wouldn't have been destroyed by your logic.

In fact, let me return to my previous question again. Roe v Wade being overturned would technically be a progressive action. It would be a change to a pre-existing standard. Why would a true progressive want to keep it in place? Oh, because it reflects your personal moral values and beliefs? Sorry if I'm beating you over the head with this.

>>To you all, I would like to ask, what is your evidence that "moral decay" really is something that will destroy society? What is your evidence that there even is such a thing as "moral decay" and not merely a "moral shift"? And even, how do you know what you perceive as moral decay really is, and isn't just something your particular brand of cynicism isn't fooling you with?

Let's begin by examining what conservative and progressive mean, shall way?

Ever heard the song "video killed the radio star"? That's progress. Once upon a time there were mom & pop video stores all over the place. Then chains like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video popped up, and they couldn't compete, so they went the way of the dinosaur. Then in turn Redbox and Netflix put Blockbuster and Hollywood Video out of business. CD stores put record stores out of business. MP3's put CD stores out of business. Consoles and MMOs put arcades out of business.

Now see, you may want to build a new house, and you may hate the old one and want it destroyed, but the thing is people live there, and they don't want their things destroyed you know? It's pretty simple. And that's how progress works.

Boiled down to their most basic level: Conservatives preserve and protect. Progressives tear down and destroy. Conservatives don't mind new things or ideas, they just don't want the old ones abolished to make room.

>>there was a man who lived in Ancient Rome, who left many writings, and would often write about how the youth of his day were losing there moral fiber, their work ethic, etc, calling them the laziest generation.

It's cyclical. Those youth likely hated the current system and wanted it torn down and replaced with one that was easier for them. As they got old, new youth turned the tables and wanted their system abolished. Ever heard of "The Third Generation Curse"?

>>I don't think social values have anything to do with whether or not the world can prosper.
>>I think it is best to limit governmental disapproval within the former spheres - such as weed, gay marriage, divorce, gender equality, etc.

And you seriously do not see how that is a hypocritical, conflicting statement? If values don't matter, then why are you suggesting it's best if they reflect yours? You believe those things should all be legal because you don't perceive them as morally wrong, or you perceive it as morally wrong to exercise any control over those things.

And as honestly with much the rest of your post, that is some bullshit.

Thank you for the responses. I should say, I made a huge mistake: I wasn't referring to conservatives per se, but rather reactionaries who call themselves social conservatives. Sorry about confusion etc. that caused.

>222

For me there's still a few questions, though. You equate the "moral goal" of the left with hedonism, yes? But you do know that different people have different goals, right? You seem to tend towards your so-called social conservatism in response to some ill-defined opposite; but the world isn't so dichotomous. Take my personal "moral goal"; it isn't pleasure, it's survival. While it's contestable, I see the world as we know as being an unsustainable exploitative mess. My support for labour, for example, comes from historical abuses and even modern abuses like Foxconn. To me, returning to a time when black people were lynched for being black, returning to a time when feudal theocratic lords sliced off the arms of someone seeking a life that wouldn't put them in an early grave, returning to a time of slaves, disease, superstition and rampant genocide facing unending fear and loneliness - to me, that's just sick. Sick in the same sense as Ed Gein.


Even so, I don't necessarily see how that argument necessarily has merit. I don't know of a culture that's destroyed itself by being hedonistic; as I said, the "famous" example of Rome only fell some 500 years after Christianization. When we look at societies like North Korea - we don't find thousands and thousands of hedonists. If anything, we find thousands and thousands of stoics and one hedonist and his inner circle controlling the nation like a pope or a god-king. Perhaps a more apt description of what you described is Poshlost? That take-what-you-want-when-you-want-ness, that petty, banal, evil little vulgarity that causes things like passion murders or teenage pregnancy, that describes both trailer trash and inner city youth? That itself seems to be a feature of poverty's live-one-day-at-time-mentality more than anything else - and so then, wouldn't a "progressive" equitable society without significant poverty rates be more desirable?


I see why one doesn't necessarily think progress is a good thing: we can't predict the future, we don't know if it (policy XYZ) will work. But when we look at the course of history, we find that the past has had unspeakable atrocities and abuses buried within it: everything from foot-binding to genocide. And we know from experience that today isn't exactly free from problems itself. So to make a better tomorrow, shouldn't we support progress, and just take the chance for whether it's good or bad or noble or ignoble or honest or not? Yes there will be bad decisions made, but isn't a few bad decisions better than an eternity of even our current levels of bloodshed, famine, and destruction?


To me, the clear goal is democracy in no uncertain terms. But I hold the elitist view with regard to government: people like the Koch brothers or Soros hold an unequal, undemocratic degree of influence due to the money they have. Because of this, I support tighter controls on the influence of money over politics, such as by fixed campaign spending or a strictly regulated form of lobbying.

When I see disasters attributed to what people call progressives, I look at their ideologies and I always, always find reactionary (regressive) beliefs at their cause: With fascism and the communism put into place in this world, they've always advanced hero worship, whether it be the vanguard party or the fearless leader. We know exactly what's wrong with this, because we've all experienced it before. We've called them leaders, presidents, kings, emperors, Caliphs and so on; what they call themselves doesn't change the fact that they're dictators. Same too to the Iranian Revolution : while yes, it deposed a king, it put in-charge basically one more in the Ayatollah.

I see these reactionary - fundamentally socially conservative reachings for the past - movements end in nothing but disaster, repeating the mistakes of the past. So this, to me, is where my lack of understanding comes from. How can a man not support progress, then? Yes the future is risky, but standing still keeps into power an institution of destruction and returning the past only brings back even more powerful institutions of destruction. So from where I stand we have to move forward, whether we want to or not.



>223

>>That's funny, because I'm pretty sure that's a near universal thing that occurs in most countries. You interpret as conservatives wanting to stop "progress" because well, you're biased. You don't consider that from the other perspective, people like the way things are, people like their beliefs. They don't feel a constant need to tear down the existing situations. This may be why in poll after poll, conservatives are happier than liberals.

Of course it's universal in most countries; almost every group has actually several conservative wings. I know people like things the way they are as well. I'm pretty sure the Kims enjoy life as they have it too; just because you specifically are not suffering, does not by any means mean that there are not others suffering. The USA is significantly better off than the DPRK, though, right? That still doesn't mean we don't have problems that we must address. You may not live in a ghetto, you may not suffer a lack of being able to afford basic health insurance, you may not have to work in a hell hole, but other people do. Even when you consider the world over, there are problems with current systems: we support Apple iPads and Microsoft XBOXes, despite things like Foxconn. Our situation is neither sustainable nor is it humane.



>>Oh boy, the assumptions...


First of all, you're assuming that when I say conservative I mean republican. I don't.

If we weren't a dichotomous winner-take-all nation, I would never vote for Obama, Clinton, etc. because they don't support the positions I do. But I'm not talking about them. I'm not talking about fiscal conservatism. I'm not talking about the people who support gay marriage, or any of those people. I'm talking about social conservatives who do support banning gay marriage, because it represents how things already are. In that respect; Obama, Clinton, etc. are on the right socially. But there are also many more issues at hand than just the one; human beings are dynamic. That's why I posed the question to people who define themselves as socially conservative. Not as people I define as socially conservative.


Also, we know precisely when and how the parties shifted places in progressive and conservative tendencies: we saw the Republicans start to go right in policy in 1896 with McKinley as things turned away from reconstruction towards new issues like tariffs; the democrats started leftwards in the 30's with the New Deal Coalition (pay attention to that last word). In 1952 the GOP turned into the more anti-Communist party with Eisenhower, and in the sixties (64 and 68) the reverse of polarisation became clearer with Lyndon B Johnson and Richard Nixon. Both parties drifted in relative ideological proximity from 1860 until the 1980's with Reagan, allowing each to branch into right and left wings. But with Reagan, identifying as Republican became synonymous with identifying as conservative. These years I'm not just pulling out of my ass, either; these are all realigning elections.

If the parties didn't change ideologically, then how do you explain things like "dixiecrats"? Party loyalty can trump ideology. There's a reason we have terms like yellow-dog.


Not to mention, of course the Conservatives support racism. Look at fucking CPAC and the countless droves of neo-nazis, neo-confederates, people like Austin Ruse, John Eastman, James Lafferty, Bob Vandervoort, Peter Brimelow... It's a fucking racist convention!

(I'm cutting it off; too big a post)

(Con't)
>>If this is about his numerous infidelities, this isn't an issue of political party, this is an issue of political power. Politicians on both sides of the aisle frequently fuck around on their spouses. I could bring up Anthony Weiner, John Edwards, Elliot Spencer or Bill Clinton, and you could bring up as many conservative politicians pulling the same shit. The only difference is, the media tends to be sympathetic when a liberal politician does it, but scorn a supposedly moral conservative doing it. To give an example, I read an article that apologized to Anthony Weiner, and compared him favorably to Herman Cain. Meanwhile it spoke with scorn about what a vile bastard Cain was for cheating, even though none of the claims against him were ever proven.


The reason I even said Gingrich is because of his support from the Religious Right - the hypocrisy, not the action. I understand liberal and conservatives fuck around. I also know why the religious right supports Gingrich: they think he's a way into the winner-take-all system. But there's still a strong stench of hypocrisy in it all. The reason I'm not touching him is because I know it's a case of the lesser of two evils for them. But there is a history of right-wing "family values" politicians being infedelitous. Just as there is with any group - it's just that this group claims a special moral high-ground with regards to who they are in this respect, and are thus all the more hypocritical. And yes I know there are left-wingers who hypocritically praise Weiner. Surpise surpise. I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about people who identify with the Moral Majority, the Family-values coalitions, the return to the 1950's.


>>I'm glad you brought this up...

Those aren't progressive. You're looking to the past for them. Were we to put them into place as policy, then by definition we'd be REgressing - that's the position of REactionaries, and the position of the so-called conservatives (the religious right, the moral majority, the whatever you want to call them who want a theocratic or less democratic USA) who want to REturn to some undefined point in the past "when things were better".

I'm not talking about those people you think I am, I'm talking about the Religious Right.


>>Or in other words, new values entered a civilization, and this change and progress destroyed it. Oh, because it was change you don't like you don't want to count it? If Rome had remained "conservative" and kept with it's pre-existing values, it wouldn't have been destroyed by your logic.


So you admit Christianity destroyed Rome? But even so, you ignored the spiel I wrote on why I think Rome truly fell. You're putting words into my mouth that I never said.

>>In fact, let me return to my previous question again. Roe v Wade being overturned would technically be a progressive action. It would be a change to a pre-existing standard. Why would a true progressive want to keep it in place? Oh, because it reflects your personal moral values and beliefs? Sorry if I'm beating you over the head with this.

"Change to a pre-existing standard." Isn't that REgression? Not PROgression? That's not what I'm talking about. Sorry if I'm beating you over the head with this.



>>Let's begin by examining what conservative and progressive mean, shall way?

>>Ever heard the song "video killed the radio star"? That's progress. Once upon a time there were mom & pop video stores all over the place. Then chains like Blockbuster and Hollywood Video popped up, and they couldn't compete, so they went the way of the dinosaur. Then in turn Redbox and Netflix put Blockbuster and Hollywood Video out of business. CD stores put record stores out of business. MP3's put CD stores out of business. Consoles and MMOs put arcades out of business.

>>Now see, you may want to build a new house, and you may hate the old one and want it destroyed, but the thing is people live there, and they don't want their things destroyed you know? It's pretty simple. And that's how progress works.

>>Boiled down to their most basic level: Conservatives preserve and protect. Progressives tear down and destroy. Conservatives don't mind new things or ideas, they just don't want the old ones abolished to make room.



Okay! That's closer to what I was talking about. That's what I mean. There is a criticism of this in that the lack of technological progress will leave us unable to compete. Blah blah blah, this is something I do understand, and likely side with you on.


But of course this is economic conservatism, not social conservatism. While money and livelihoods depend on this, nobody's livelihood depends on institutionalised poverty, nobody's livelihood depends on the banning of gay marriage. What I'm trying to ask is how do people stand against that? I can see disagreements in how remedy is to be done, but I can't see how people support the institution that keeps our problems constant.





>>It's cyclical. Those youth likely hated the current system and wanted it torn down and replaced with one that was easier for them. As they got old, new youth turned the tables and wanted their system abolished. Ever heard of "The Third Generation Curse"?


Of course I have. But this cycle usually doesn't present a regression to some romanticised, fetishised state, but new information for a new time. Again, I think we're not talking about the same thing here.




>>And you seriously do not see how that is a hypocritical, conflicting statement? If values don't matter, then why are you suggesting it's best if they reflect yours? You believe those things should all be legal because you don't perceive them as morally wrong, or you perceive it as morally wrong to exercise any control over those things.

Because those things have nothing to do with whether I see them as right or wrong? I think it's best not to drink, because it leads to stupid decisions - but that doesn't mean that I'm a prohibitionist. I think looking at history, we know better than to regress to those times. Crime and death rise when people are pushed to desperate situations. But banning homosexual marriage or enforcing a theocracy doesn't ease those values.


To be clear, I didn't say values don't matter, I was asking how do you determine what values do matter. Prospering doesn't have anything to do with crime and death rates; it has everything to do with average income. A million people calling itself arbitrarily a nation can profit off the slave labour of a hundred thousand. That's how the USA enjoys relatively cheap things like iPads or XBOXes - Foxconn. Don't believe they're cheap? Imagine if they were made in the US. That's not morally just, but it has nothing to do with prospering, which people who want to enforce bans on social phenomena based on religion or a romanticised belief seem to think.

Sorry about that.

>>226

>>222 here.

I do understand that different people have different goals; I am not a hedonist, while others are. The issue is what outlook prevails in the society and shapes the public sphere, and hedonism, widely understood, is what the progressives aim for. And I think you too fit in this wide understanding: you don´t live in midst of a civil war, so survival is pretty much granted for you. The real question is how you want to live, or survive, if you wish so: I assume you will not content yourself with just any kind of survival, like on welfare checks, homelessness or dealing crack on a street corner, but instead you aim for a comfortable existence that includes a car, one´s own apartment, video games, internet of course, good food, etc. Maybe you don´t wish for a car, but the underlying point remains - you strive for a life of ease. Or so I think. If I may offer myself for a contrast, pretentious as it may get, I strive for knowledge, and am willing to give up a lot for it. I study philosophy instead of a more lucrative subject; I don´t work to have time to read the books carefully (and by that I mean actually reading those books carefully, not partying); I don´t even have a driving license.

My main problem with hedonism is not that it will break the society down (it well may, but I don´t feel like arguing for it): it is that I do not consider it a goal worthy of a man, and I don´t want to live in a society that thinks it is. Hedonism breeds laziness and complacency, instead of the striving for perfection I admire. In short, it reverts men to animals - and I want to live among men, not among beasts. I do enjoy parties, sex and other pleasures too, but only in a limited measure and only as a supplement to the worthy activities (one has to relax every now and then). One remark on the Romans: they knew how to enjoy themselves for sure, but not exclusively (which is what the modern hedonism aims for): they had a strong sense of honor and virtue, and that is what made them so great. Romans were not afraid to fight - actually, physically fight - for their country and culture, while the modern society hates war with a passion (liberals especially, but also some conservatives bitch about soldiers who died in combat, not realizing it to be a death worthy of a man).

>>I see why one doesn't necessarily think progress is a good thing: we can't predict the future, we don't know if it (policy XYZ) will work.
For me, the great lesson of conservatism is that things are as they are chiefly because they work; the traditional policies, however evil or depraved they may seem to the modern eye (since values change over time, as you remarked), have stood the test of time and made society work. If they ought to be changed at all, then by slow and partial changes and careful consideration of what effects they bring: two wrongs don´t make a right. But the progressives have no patience for that.

I´ll pass on your other comments, since we will hardly resolve even those matters I commented upon in any satisfactory matter, and it is better to concentrate than to stay flailing on the surface.

>>228
You really have no idea how much alike we actually.

But when I refer to survival, I guess I do mean "ease" - but only so much so that ease means a freedom from malnutrition - basic health.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_9695000/9695217.stm

Another thing: There's this progressively-backed program where I live, where the poor may apply one time for free coverage of a medical procedure - this is especially important for minimum wage households, where health insurance is far from guaranteed, and even more important for households that work under the table - where the work is when the over-the-table businesses won't hire.

This program was strong about a decade ago. My mother was between jobs, and her boyfriend was going back to school, so there was no real coverage. My sister was born about then; were it not for a lucky break, that visit they wouldn't have been able to afford.

But, more importantly: while the break they caught payed for the costs of having the baby, it didn't fix another problem. My mom had an irregular heart beat - this was later found to be a valve that wouldn't close. What they had wouldn't cover the operation to fix it, so they had to refer to this program.

It pretty much saved my mom's life, and guaranteed that I could actually get to know my sister (there's no way that her dad could've taken care of her on his own; she would've gone into foster care otherwise).

Since then the program's been utterly gutted by conservative legislation. It used to be an anytime thing that you could go to if you qualified and you need it. Now my mother's without coverage because she already took advantage of (survived by) it, and she needs it for a (inexpensive, relatively) procedure that would cut out a piece of her jaw that's preventing her from being able to eat.


So there's that. Honestly, I really do feel that that's something justifiable to fight for.

And I'll level with you: I fail to see how guaranteeing a basic quality of life, such as nutrition or healthcare, is hedonism. Maybe in your world where nobody's a man until they've murdered someone else like some despotic dictatorial third world tribal warfare hell hole, but not, I think, in anything approaching a civilised society.