Social 'Conservatives' Are Not Real Conservatives

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I find the concept that the core of conservatism is restriction of government puzzling, because it leads to the conclusion (which you reason out but don't explicitly acknowledge) that proper conservatism is not meaningfully different from libertarianism, lacking any ability to push back against progressive ideas or aim to conserve anything through the political system. You say that "real conservatives support a small government that does not go any further than it needs to", but as far as government needs to go is an entirely arbitrary and subjective measure.

     Even if we grant that conservatism in its proper state is just libertarianism by a different name, it is worth noting that one of the biggest internal debates in libertarianism is abortion. The reason for this is simple; if abortion really is murder then it is the most clearly justified exercise of government power imaginable. Likewise religious conservatives oppose euthanasia because we believe that killing an innocent person is murder per se, regardless of the circumstances that surround it.

     With that said, I can tell that your response will be that that is my moral code and I am not a real conservative if I want to force it on others. The problem there is that literally every law consists in forcing a moral code on others who may disagree with it, and the concept of any law doing otherwise is an absurdity that is founded in the conceit of assuming that the prevailing morality of the society today is a representation of neutral reality and any departure from that is a moral opinion that seeks to be forced on to others. To genuinely believe this would be a baseless "I agree with the majority", the very antithesis of actually having beliefs and principles. Discarding that notion, if we suppose that forcing morals on others is not genuine conservatism, then the only ideology that could be considered compatible with genuine conservatism is anarchism.

[Associate Justice PiT]

To the next paragraph, what you said about abortion is indeed true. It is why I'm not altogether unsympathetic to the radically pro-life argument, because if you do think fetuses are babies or unborn babies, and consider abortion baby murder or infanticide, you'd naturally consider that (even as someone who's really quite libertarian) to be a place for the government to intervene in. With that said, I think euthanasia (and doctor-assisted suicide) really isn't murder if the patient in question has a 'living will' or can otherwise ascertain that they do, in fact, not want to live anymore and want to be euthanised.

     The objection to euthanasia is a bit more tricky to understand in the modern context, but I ground my view in the concept that people have inherent dignity that is inviolable, even by consensual actions. It's also why I lean opposed to the death penalty; many Christian conservatives are comfortable with saying that murderers have forfeited their right to life, but the concept of making that judgment call bothers me.

To that third one, very interesting. I tend to consider forcing your moral code upon others limited almost always to social issues such as abortion and LGBT issues and euthanasia and the death penalty. But it is true that in a way, all public policy consists of some moral code being enforced - for instance, supporting any war or defence spending could be said to be inflicting the moral code of non-pacifists and war-hawks upon pacifists (who'd oppose it), and taxing anybody would go agains the moral code of those who principally oppose all taxation.

     It's a very common category error that most people make; we only consider positions that most people find contentious when it comes to "forcing a morality". Fact is that objectivists have a morality forced on them by welfare programs. Sovereign citizens have a morality forced on them by driver's licenses. We accept causing these minority groups some discomfort and forcing a moral code on them because we believe that these policies should exist. Likewise, I am willing to cause pro-choice people some discomfort because I believe abortion should be illegal.

Anyway, thank you for this discussion. I can say that what you three said has evolved my opinion on this and made me think of it in a different, more nuanced, perceptive.

     Happy to hear it. I hadn't put that much effort in a post on Atlas in a very long time, because I find that most people are set in their ways and pretty much just want to push a set of talking points. I'm glad to hear that my effort in this thread was worth it and my post helped you see the topic in a different light.

[Associate Justice PiT]

With that said, I can tell that your response will be that that is my moral code and I am not a real conservative if I want to force it on others. The problem there is that literally every law consists in forcing a moral code on others who may disagree with it, and the concept of any law doing otherwise is an absurdity that is founded in the conceit of assuming that the prevailing morality of the society today is a representation of neutral reality and any departure from that is a moral opinion that seeks to be forced on to others. To genuinely believe this would be a baseless "I agree with the majority", the very antithesis of actually having beliefs and principles. Discarding that notion, if we suppose that forcing morals on others is not genuine conservatism, then the only ideology that could be considered compatible with genuine conservatism is anarchism.

Except your (religious) moral code is not a neutral reality. And it's only socially conservative by extension not a priori. The counter morality to it, imparted as it is by broader social consent, has a stronger basis in neutrality.

     Did I suggest that it was a neutral reality? My point is that the concept of making laws that are morally neutral is absurd and fundamentally grounded in a basic cognitive error about what morality is.