Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Let’s Be “Virtue Conservatives”
I’m dissatisfied with the term “social conservative.” I’m wondering if we can’t come up with something better.
What is a social conservative, anyway? Just a person who’s religious and cares a lot about abortion? We know the type, but the name is kind of nebulous, particularly when it’s contrasted with “libertarian” (as it so often is), it makes it sound as though libertarians have a real philosophical foundation and social conservatives just have a lot of strong opinions about how people should live (generally rooted in prejudice or blind obedience to religion).
I submit that the strongest distinguishing trait of the people we call “social conservatives” is an intense concern with culture and healthy ways of living. So why can’t we be “virtue conservatives”? That broadcasts what we really care about. Anyone with me?
Published in General
If libertarianism amounts to nothing more than “no one can be coerced to join something,” then libertarianism isn’t the slightest bit interesting. That’s just a commonplace platitude.
What makes libertarianism interesting is the further assertion that individuals have the right to engage in and create associations, as Mama said … “making their own rules and regulations to govern their free associations as they choose.”
No one cares about whether you can join a social institution. The question is whether you are entitled to define marriage for yourself, family for yourself, morality for yourself, and so on. That’s what makes libertarianism interesting, but it’s based on a very different premise than social conservatives believe that social institutions are based on.
No – they didn’t. There was a clear, defined, and “canonical” set of beliefs that they were asked to take or leave, so to speak. They didn’t define the faith.
That’s not a small distinction. That infers that the spouses can define what the marriage is. These days, if two gay people want to define their relationship as marriage, I guess we have to accept it. If a single woman has a baby out of wedlock, I guess we have to call that a family. No. Institutions are defined.
If libertarianism was merely the platitude that you can’t be coerced to join … yawn. The debatable assertion with libertarianism is whether the participants, by their free consent, have the right to set the rules.
Yes and no.
Yes, because I don’t really think that libertarians hate family or church. Rachel’s article about “libertarian libertines” cites some people as being that way, but not all of libertarians are libertines. The vast majority are commonsense and, as we see on Ricochet, wonderful people.
No, because the problem is the logic.
If your assertion is that individuals have the right to enter arrangements with each other in whatever way they please, i.e., everything is a contract based on consent … then you cannot avoid the eventual conflict with social institutions, whether you like it or not. Social institutions are not defined by the participants within. You can’t define marriage for yourself. You can’t define family for yourself.
You can’t seriously be arguing that the members of a social institution don’t continually reshape and define what those institutions mean and the values they represent. Because…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Trent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation
And that’s just for the Christian Churches.
I agree with this, that AIG said. I think I understand what you’re attempting, Rachel, but using “virtue” as a modifier for “conservative” can easily be interpreted as insulting to everyone who is *not* part of that grouping.
I am enjoying the larger conversation, Ricochetti, carry on, please! Grin.
Of course you can, and in a truly free marketplace of ideas the social institutions that provide the greatest advantages to their members will win out. The problem is when government interferes with this process and supports failing ideas.
KC, you and I are Catholic. Our Church’s understanding of marriage makes us realize that divorce is meaningless in Catholic marriage. Likewise, the idea of a sterile, non-sexually complementary marriage is gibberish.
If you disagreed, changed your view, evolved, whatever, you could freely leave the church. You could join a different church, or become a marriage minister, or do whatever.
I cannot compel you to continue to believe as I believe. You cannot compel the church to alter her teachings.
I would not want to impose a Catholic understanding of marriage upon people who did not understand and accpt it freely.
The main problem I have with virtue conservatives is that I fear they are more concerned with my virtue than their own. We already have the progressive virtue police.
To add one final point, although I would not wish to compel or coerce, I believe in my obligation and duty to convince and convert. I happily vote for virtue, but if my fellow citizens wish for and choose otherwise, how do I compel them?
The question here is whether libertarians believe they have the right to shape the content of the institutions for themselves.
As it is, there is a social institution that does indeed rest entirely on the consent of the governed – i.e., political government. That’s the innovation of Locke and Montesquieu and Jefferson and others.
But that same innovation does not attach to other social institutions. Consent is essential but not sufficient for them. You can’t have a marriage unless you consent,but that doesn’t mean that’s all it is. Marriage has a form that isn’t determined by the consenters. Family has a form that’s not defined by the consenters. To say it a different way: morality is not a communal consensus. These institutions have objective form.
That’s where libertarianism differs from others … if starts from the premise that individual autonomy is essential but the form is negotiable. True for politics, true for economics and law … but not true for other institutions, such as family or morality.
You ascribe the wrong premise. Not “that individual autonomy is essential but the form is negotiable.”
Rather, “individual autonomy is essential but does not have the power to remake reality as we wish it. We exist as individuals within society, with rights and obligations but not with power over others.”
KC, whether I will or nay, gay marriage was approved by the NY State Legislature.
I try to do my part to educate as to why the Church is opposed to it, but very few people are interested in the debate.
As a Christian, this worries me, because opposition to acquiescing in, catering, photographing, hosting gay weddings is very expensive.
My neighbors, let us call them “virtue progressives,” are thrilled. As they are with the idea of banning plastic bags in local shops.
Do you really not see the value in arguing strongly for the right of free association and limiting the ways government can promote any one particular view of virtue?
We don’t have power over others, but so what? That doesn’t mean that we must agree and support what others have decided for themselves.
Social conservatives, despite the stereotype, aren’t looking to impose our understanding of morality on others … but let’s face it, if law is up for grabs, we have as much right to lobby and push and argue as anyone else. In fact, it would be a contradiction to say that no one can impose their own beliefs on others … so traditionalists have to shut up.
But that wasn’t the point. Rand’s philosophy of objectivism is based on the premise of individual autonomy, which is the same basis as most strains of libertarianism. It isn’t that they’re the same theory, but both objectivism and libertarianism place premium importance on individual autonomy.
Mama, why do you keep assuming that the solution here is in government? You’re arguing that the government effectively decided the morality of the issue, so we have to accept that as reality and let’s just hope they don’t take away our right to complain.
I don’t accept the idea that they had the right to decide the issue in the first place.
And if you argue that, hey, they have the power … so it’s a waste of time to keep fighting … then you can’t argue when they go further and take away your other rights as well. If you accept the premise that usurped power is reality, so get used to it, then you have no defense when they steal even more power.
The premise that government can decide morality is like being pregnant … once it’s true, there ain’t no in-between.
Keep in mind that it’s very possible to be smugly superior about one’s lack of underpinnings. I encounter that quite often, actually.
What reason do you have to think that? Are any of us issuing you morality surveys or offering you unwelcome critiques of your personal life?
There’s nothing intrinsically snooty or self-righteous about promoting virtue. And if libertarians make free to label themselves as “promoters of liberty” and progressives as “promoters of progress”, I don’t see why we should be all bashful about flying the flag of virtue.
Neither KC nor I have in any way endorsed Draconian governmental efforts to strong-arm people into any kind of good behavior. I’m not sure what your concerns are based on.
Calling yourself a “virtue conservative” is stupid politics. It would be like calling yourself a Mrs Grundy conservative. I’d be ashamed to wear the “virtue” label anyway, as my personal virtue is only slightly better than Attila’s. Since humility is the key to all other virtues could we go with “humble conservative” instead? I’ll match my humility against anyone’s!
Seriously though, the social conservative movement needs to change substance rather than style. For example, the pro-life movement should dump its current leadership, adopt a rational style of argument, and also adopt an FDR style court-packing plan to overturn Roe v Wade (Marbury v Madison too, while we’re at it). Pro-life arguments won’t be taken seriously while we lack political clout. As long as the Court makes the rules pro-life voting is pointless -and even dangerous. More importantly, pro-lifers need to adopt the ancient concept known as “learning from past mistakes”. Most pro-lifers of my acquaintance are either unaware that that concept was ever invented, or else don’t believe it applies to themselves.
KC, in what way do I “assume that the solution here is in government?”
No I’m not “arguing that government effectively decided the morality,” so hush up now. I’m arguing against the government having the power to legislate or compel what some see as virtuous behavior.
For someone who keeps complaining that libertarianism is boring, a real yawneroo, you keep talking about it a lot, KC. If it is so dullsville, I at least hope we helped cure your insomnia, but it would help if you actually pay attention to what I’ve actually said, not the conversation on libertarianism that you seem to be having in your head.
Rachel, what is virtue? Adjectives like “social” and “fiscal” are useful shorthand because they tell you what people are concerned with, i.e., social or fiscal issues. How does “virtue” create a useful shorthand without some kind of answer?
The problem is that it doesn’t. There is no national or even town-wide consensus about what virtue is. And it sounds self-righteous.
Without explaining why it isn’t and what it means, you leave me feeling wary.
No, Mama … that’s not what I’ve been saying. What I’ve said was that …if … libertarianism is nothing else, it would be uninteresting. However, as I’ve also clearly said, that isn’t what libertarianism argues. It does argue that personal autonomy is the basis of social institutions, and having adopted that basis, it inevitably comes into conflict with social institutions that have an objective form.
And as Rachel pointed out, neither one of us have suggested that government compel anything, and have stated that explicitly. There’s no need to argue against that, since no one is arguing for it. The conversation you’re having has nothing to do with what we’ve said.
I’m happy to discuss virtue all day. In fact I do, because the main objective of my ethics course is to get jaded 20-year-olds to see what virtue is and why they should care about it. Students aren’t too reticent about leaving nasty comments on anonymous evals, but no one has ever called me self-righteous in that context. Even if they find me boring and/or eccentric, I think they recognize pretty clearly that my enthusiasm for the subject is genuine and not just an excuse for judging them.
The greatest pagan and Christian thinkers discussed this topic with great enthusiasm quite literally for centuries. That’s our heritage, as Catholics especially; we can’t get all wishy-washy about it now just because we live in a relativistic age! People will think we’re snooty if we claim that our tradition has given us real insight into human good, so we should just pipe down and not talk about it… what kind of stance is that?
I’m not claiming *to be* a model of human excellence (though of course I try my best), but I do think that the Catholic Aristotelian tradition has yielded certain insights into what human excellence involves. And I think it is our obligation to offer those as we can to a world that sorely needs them. If people respond to the label by saying, “hmm, virtue conservatives? What is virtue though?” that might be just the starting point you need.