Since joining FaceBook, it has become clear to my growing number of FaceBook friends who have either kept up with me over the years or with whom I am just now re-connecting after many years, that I am a conservative. I wanted to take this opportunity to represent what it means for me to be a conservative, and why I’m not as radical as some might think, particularly since I am not an Obama supporter on the basis of his liberal policies. What I ask, my dear liberal friends, is that you simply try to understand my worldview, even though you may not agree with it. My hope is simply that you will see it as well-reasoned and thoughtful, in a spirit of love and humility with no malice towards anyone. I ask for no more.
I think the first thing to understand about the conservative view is that universally we believe moral law and moral obligations, though they are abstract entities, are real and are objective as opposed to subjective. This is consistent with the view that there is objective reality, and that our intellects allow us to gain access to that reality (contra Kant, et al.). Objective reality exists whether we are here to experience it or not. In other words, there are abstract entities that are transcendent and eternal, which do not change over time. This all leads to the belief in a necessary, eternal being that is not contingent as is our universe, but has always existed. There has always been something and never has there been a time when there was nothing. That something that has always been is the necessary, self-existent being who is the creator of our universe.
So what does this all mean? Essentially that there is a creator who has gifted us with an intelligible universe that faithfully observes mathematical and physical laws, and who has endowed us with the intellect to be able to make sense of these laws so that we can explore and enjoy the earth on which we live and the vastness of the universe. Concomitant with this intellect is free will which can be used for good or evil. Something inside each of use innately knows right from wrong, good from bad, because that is how we were created.
The belief in a creator is fundamental to the founding of our Republic, as specified in the Declaration of Independence which holds these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, amongst those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Without a creator, there simply is no objective standard on which to base morality, and thus society would be otherwise based on social contracts (a la Rousseau) that may be forced on the minority by the majority. But what is interesting here is that with no objective morality, there is no moral imperative to regulate any type of behavior. That is why I wonder how an atheist would ponder the rightness or wrongness of something stolen from him, because logically, there would be no right and wrong. He would be “justified” only in simply following his instincts to claim his property by either intimidation or physically force if necessary.
Many liberals are opposed to conservatives because we believe in an objective morality that they say we want to “impose” on them, and that we have no right to do so. But have they stopped to think that they live in a society where morals are enforced on a daily basis by the laws of the land? Every society is imposing morality of some sort on every one of its citizens, so it really is a question of what morals are being enforced, not if they are. Otherwise, if there was no moral code, we would live in a purely Darwinian system of survival of the fittest, just as we see in the animal world. So my assertion is that for those who don’t believe in objective morality, the only thing that would be logically consistent would be to entirely give up all government and all laws in favor of a purely Darwinian system. In actuality, there would be a benefit because natural selection would be able to present itself in full force, winnowing out the weakest amongst us allowing only the fittest to survive. The human race would have upward genetic mobility instead of a genetic code that is deteriorating due to a lack of natural selection daily and hourly scrutinizing who will survive and who won’t. But of course, we have already seen where this type of thinking leads, and since I don’t buy into the Darwinian paradigm as it currently stands anyway, I will leave it there.
To close out the first of this three part series, what I’m fundamentally trying to establish is something pointed out by Ronald Reagan, which is the gradual fraying of our country’s moral and economic fabric. As we move further and further away from the principles of our country’s founding fathers and the belief in objective morality, we slide further towards socialism, with the expectation that government will solve all of our problems because we can’t solve those problems ourselves through capitalism and free enterprise. Conservatives believe in a society of liberty and freedom, and that foremost among the transcendent values is the individual’s use of his God-given free will. However, it is up to us to use that free will in a manner that best upholds objective moral laws and obligations, knowing that we are fallen and that we will always be at war with the evil in each of our hearts.
share on: facebook
Posts
Gilson on philosophy and its history
3 days ago
