Conservatism Flashcards
Name the key thinkers and there ideology?
Thomas Hobbes: (1588 - 1679)
Order -
Human Nature -
Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
Change -
Tradition-
Micheal Oakeshott (1901-1990)
Human imperfection-
Pragmatism -
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)
Objectivism -
Freedom
Robert Nozick (1938 - 2002)
Libertarianism-
Self ownership-
Origins of conservatism
———————————-
What is conservatism?
what event caused a reaction to the beginning conservatism?
What was the Enlightenment about?
What events were taking place in the 18th C + How did politicions feel about this ideal society in the 18th C?
What revolutions shape the concept of conservatism?
What was the purpose of the French Revolution?
What event caused politicians to Q the enlightenment thought?
Due to this event what idea was conservatives putting forward?
What was Edmunds Burks nickname, what was his famous writing called, what did his writing argue?
What was Burks quote that suggested the idea to conserve?
conservatism exists almost as a reaction to radical political change it came out of the European revolutions
conservatism began as a reaction to the enlightenment focus on human reason and a drive for progression.
it was an idea of an ideal society, which was the job of politicians to provide tolerance, equality and individual rights.
18century difficult with the events like the American revolution for politicians to challenge the enlightenment without seeming intolerant This was know as the Whig supremacy in Britain making it hard to challenge the enlightenment thought.
The French Revolution
To replace the monarchy with a written constitution
The beheading of Louis XVI
‘Change to conserve’
Burke reputation was the Father of conservatism, His work was called ‘Reflections of the Revolution in France 1970, He challenged the French Revolution and his writing established that the conservative ideology saw change as inevitable but this would see change to conserve being a Doctrine of Maintenance of repair.
‘A state without a means of some change is without the means of its conservatism’
The views of Hobbs compared to *Human reason+Natural Rights
————————————————-
What event was Hobbs writing in?
What was both Hobbs and Burke writing about?
What were Locks views on individual freedom and did Burke agree if not what was Burkes views?
What were Hobbs views on humans?
How do these characteristics link to reason, principles and settling disputes between humans?
What is this view on human nature referred to and what is the meaning of the belief?
How did Hobbs describe actions and what is the meaning behind these actions?
Due to this what ideology can Hobbs challenge?
Which factor unites all humans and how does it link to natural rights and reason?
Hobbs was writing during the English Civil war
Hobbes was reacting to the enlightenment like Locke developing theories around the level of state power and what form of social contract individual should submit to the best ensure freedoms.
For Hobbs Lux theatre, all individual freedom should be entrenched limits, placed on the state and change from all the usual audit achieved are flawed
Locke believe that individual freedom should be entrenched. There should be limits, placed on the state and the old feudal order should be changed. hobbs disagreed with this idea he wanted to seek to create a sovereign with absolute power, able to craft a society In whatever way they choose and a defence of the existing order.
Hobbes argued that humans are capable of reason but equally can be driven by emotional and irrational impulses.
This means that we are limits on what can be achieved with reason and that humans cannot discover some set of perfect principles+values to agree on and therefore cannot easily settle dispute and conflicts between each other.
This is a pessimistic approach to human nature and is referred to as relativism This is the belief that there is no absolute truths on moral standards.
Hobbs argued that there are no good or bad actions and that people simply use these terms to describe what is positive or negative for them in their culture therefore we cannot agree on broad range of principles. This also means that people only see good and bad actions in terms of what impact their own prosperity and there is no altruistic actions.
Hobbs views can be used to challenge the idea of a more utopian ideology which believes in society is based on a broadly accepted set of principles for Hobbs.
The only factor which united all humans was the fear of death, and therefore the only natural right we can agree on are those which preserve our own life taking actions which in our own judgement and reason allow us to achieve this goal.
Origins of conservatism
*state of nature
————————————
What did Locke and Hobbs both perceive the state of nature to be and how did there views differ?
What was Hobbs view on the lack of absolute rule in the state of nature?
How did Hobbs argue people could come together in a state of violence?
Locke and Hobbes believe that the state of nature could be perceived as dangerous. Locke arguing it would be far more efficient to have a nation state based on consent to rule which could ensure the protection of natural rights. Hobbs however disagreed with the lock that the state of nature had positive attributes and viewing it instead as a period of almost constant conflict.
For Hobbs the lack of absolute rule in the state of nature meant that our natural drive to compete for scars resources would lead to mistrust between groups therefore actions would be taken out of self preservation change your life therefore pre-emptive acts of violence would be common. The state of nature, in essence would become a state of war hopes made it clear that it was not a human nature to create war, but that the lack of resources, clear, leadership and constant unease due to a lack of order which would make the state of nature violent the lack of sovereign for hobbs meant conflict was inevitable, and a social contract was almost impossible
Origins of conservatism
social contract
———————————
What Lockes view on social contract?
What was Hobbs view on social contracts?
What idea of Hobbs contradicts with conservative philosophies and aligns more with classical liberals?
What view of Hobbs was different to liberals?
Lockes view on human nature was optimistic. He believed in the system of consent to rule by the people which could be overthrown if the social contract was not followed to via the fiduciary power.
Have had a pessimistic attitude towards human nature. He believed that the people would be too afraid due to violence to be able to come together to agree on a set contract for rulers. He argued the only way this would be possible was by uniting people around the one goal that was natural to all staying alive.Thus society would be born not out of the goodwill between people but of the natural rights of self preservation, which in turn will lead to a set of natural laws rules for all in the group to live safely these rules would be accepted by all as they kept you alive these laws can be even seen as coming from God.
Hobbes admitted an element of rationality in human nature, which aligns with classical liberals. He even admitted that in the state of nature a period would exist which there was no war as we would rationally choose to end conflicts in favour of peace, and ultimately find our own way out of the state of nature.
A key difference, however from liberals was that Hobbes did not think we could be truly free until a clear state had been created to bring order.
Origins of conservatism
state power
————————————-
What was the Lockes view of the state power?
What was Hobbs view of the states power?
What was Hobbs work The Leviathan 1651 view of the states power?
What did Hobbs say when liberals said it would impact freedom?
Is natural rights more valuable or stability and security according to Hobbs?
Did Hobbes believe in the monarchy to enforce absolute power?
He focused on the idea of a harmonious link between the people and the government. It would provide protection of their rights by a limited government, and if the social contract was violated The state could be overthrown via rebellion if necessary.
Hobbs had a negative view on the state of nature therefore his view on the state would be different. As the state of nature was so violent he did not believe it was possible for people to get along without the existence of an absolute power to control these urges allowing us to avoid the natural chaos, which comes from individuals acting in ways which they believe are right and wrong.
The state would need to be strong to ensure order and enforce rules this would ensure people did not take justice into their own hands risking the destabilisation of the system.
when liberals challenged these ideas as a direct threat to freedoms Hobbs responded by arguing ‘we are not free unless we are safe and feel as though we are safe’ therefore for him the
absolute sovereign was the only way people could be safe and therefore be free.
For Hobbes, the liberal values of natural rights and liberties must come 2nd to those of stability and security, the sovereign will choose these rights ensuring order and therefore the safety and relative freedom of their subjects.
Hobbs did not say that the absolute power needed to be enforced by a monarchy, but believe this was their natural course, as he believed an individual leader, who had been born to rule, would be more capable of holding all the powers to keep peace and security eg Redistribute land, ensure happiness of the subjects, provide for the poor in a way that did not provide them with material gain, encourage all to work and ensure the wealthiest contribute to society but in a way which did not desensitise them from creating more wealth for the nation.
Conservatism on Human Nature
———————————————-
Do Conservatives have the same ideology on human nature liberalism and socialism?
How do conservatives describe human nature,what type of society do conservatives deny?
How do conservatives describe humans, What is human imperfection centred around?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Key thinkers ideas on human nature
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What thinker did Hobbs disagree with over the state of nature,what did Hobbs instead argue,what would the state of nature be described as if there was no formal authority?
What did Hobbs work The Leviathan argue humans were and likely to do, what was life like before the state?
Was Hobbs a quintessential Conservative, in his work Leviathan what did he argue and what would it lead to?
On the topic of human nature, was Hobbes more in line with liberals or conservatives and how is this evident?
What thoughts did Edmund Burke firmly establish conservatism on, what was his famous writing and what idea did he reject, what key views and broader conservative views did Burke develop?
What did Edmund Burke argue the revolution wanted to achieve and what did he show,What did Burke argue this idea centred from and what did it reflect, whose ideology did it reject?
What were Burke and Hobbs views human nature and why did they ridicule HN, However how was Burke different, What fraction was Burke part of,What was Burke refers to as in the fraction and who did he have more restraint over?
What did Burke argue humans were not that hobbs argued they were?
What did Burke argue humans were capable of as long as their actions were rooted in the church?
Did Burke agree with hobbs that human nature was ruthlessly individualistic and if not why?
What does Burke and most conservatives believe human flaws come from,what do we need due to these flaws according to Burke?
Did Burke believe humans could redefine society if not why?
What type of conservative is
Oakeshott, who’s idea did he update and in what century and how did conservatives view human nature link to the idea of conservatism, what did Oakeshott argue?
What did Oakeshott believe life without laws would be like that different from Hobbs, what did he instead argue?
What did Oakeshott accept about Human Nature, what was his book called and what did it argue?
What did Rand and Nozick focus human nature on?
How did Nozick view humans and what do they need?
Which key thinker did Nozick link the idea of humans to, what was his book called?
What book did Rand write and what did it argue?
Conservative belief on human nature is different to its rival ideology’s of liberalism and socialism.
Conservatives believe human nature is frail and Fallible (flawed) this leaves it as a philosophy of imperfection. The conservatives denied a Utopian Society could be achieved as they describe humanity ‘as it was’ not ‘what it could be’
Humans were not malleable they were fixed and constant. Human imperfection is central to the conservative belief and is centred around the Old Testament doctrine of Original Sin this is the idea that since the start of the time and from birth flaws and imperfections are a part of human nature.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hobbes opposed Lockes views on the state of nature. Arguing humans were ruthlessly selfish, calculating and competitive. And without constraints or formal authority the state of nature would be marked by ‘Envy, Hatred and War’ leaving life, ‘nasty, brutish and short.’
His work Leviathan (1651) argued that humans were needy, vulnerable, and likely to commit a destructive acts. Before the state there was no cooperation and no natural rights were insured he argued resources would have been scarce and we would have been governed by ruthless self interest.
However issues remain with Hobbes view he was not a quintessential Conservative.
Within his work leviathan he admitted that underpinning the human condition was a cold rationality. This he argued would lead to warring fractions in the state of nature eventually to establish a relationship based on contracts which intern would lead to a formal version of the state.
Hobbs recognised the more positive aspects of human nature placing him more in line with the liberal perspective on the human this was further reflected in his comments on rule by consent.
Edmund Burke firmly established the roots of conservatism with thoughts and human nature. His attack on the French revolution in Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790) rejected the idea *that human nature could plan the perfect society. He establish the key views that humans were imperfect and developed the broader conservative views on Empiricisms, Organicism, Tradition, Aristocracy, and Localism.
Edmund Burke argued the revolution, attempted to achieve an unrealistic utopia. He showed the real fallibility of mankind, who was more likely to fail than succeed. He argued this centred from man’s Original Sin and other biblical teachings reflecting the ‘Chasm between our desires, and achievements’ rejecting the liberal ideas of rationality and reason.
Hobbs and Burke were sceptical on human nature and ridiculed any idea that Human Nature could be saintly or perfect. Burke had more Conservative conclusions. Burke was a member of the Whig fraction not the Tories. He was labelled as an old Whig and had more restrained than his more liberal colleagues about the future of reform
He first argued that humans were not brutally selfish as Hobbs Burke argued they were Fallible Not terrible.
Secondly he argued they were capable of kindness, altruism and wisdom as long as their actions were rooted in the church.
Burke argued Human Nature was not ruthlessly individualistic as Hobbs had viewed it he argued we were naturally communal and would form communities to gain support and comfort he labelled these communities as Little Platoons.
For Burke and most conservatives human flaws are from psychological, moral and intellectual inadequacies. Which the general population suffers from which creates a necessity for strong government with strict use of law and order to control people. This also relates to why most Conservative party policies do not focus on the social aspects of crime.
Burke Thought that it was unrealistic for any human to be capable of redefining society and any attempt was likely to lead to return to the chaos of the state of nature.
Michael Oakeshott is a one nation conservative. He updated Burkes view of conservatism for the 20th century by the time many conservatives viewed Human Nature as being the essence of understanding the ideology. Oakeshott argued it was more ‘psychological than ideology’ and that it was an ‘instinctive preference for what is known with an innate fear of the uncertain.’
Oakeshott differed from Hobbs as he argued that life without laws were not be as *Brutish as Hobbs argued. Oakeshott argued that *‘life would be not so much nasty, brutish and short… as noisy, foolish and flawed.’
He accepted human nature was *fragile and fallible but also benign and benevolent When framed in routine, familiarity and religious principle. His book ‘On being Conservative’ (1962) argued although people could not create perfect societies this did not mean it had to be a philosophy of pessimism, and therefore people could achieve pleasure and improvement in the humdrum of businesses.
Ayn Rand and Robert Nozick focused on the human nature to allow for individual freedom and the capacity for innovation and enterprise.
Nozick viewed people as ‘freedom loving pack animals’ who needed restraint and deep-rooted communities.
Nozick linked with Hobbs views that Human Nature, it’s mainly driven by self interest and must be contained in order to maintain peace and stability in his book Anarchy, State and Utopia, (1974)
Rand book The virtue of selfishness, 1964 argued human nature centred around her belief in Atomism the idea that human nature was defined by millions of autonomous individuals seeking self-fulfilment and realisation.
Conservatism on society
———————————-
Localism
———————————-
What do early conservatives argue?
How do liberals describe society and how is this different to Burkes view?
What did Burke argue about the French Revolution
—————————————————
Organicism
—————————————————
Do conservatives believe society should be created if not why?
How do liberals feel about an organically emerged society?
How do conservatives feel about an organically emerged society?
How does the elements of a conservative society link with class,what does Burke argue about these different roles?
Due to Burkes view on class being essential what was his views on liberal opposition to hierarchy and what did he say about his platoons?
Does Burke believe people have a say on being born into a position or society if not what are we instead born into?
Early conservatives argue that society exists
Liberal view society as Atomised which describes society a s a lose collection of individuals. Burke described these as little Platoons this is a collection of localised communities these communities supply individuals with security,status and inspiration whilst reducing selfish individualism that CL describe.
Burke criticised the French Revolution as he said it started a single monolithic (rigid) French society that would deter local loyalties and reinforced with the highly centralised state which came with directory and revolutionary rule.
—————————————————
Conservatives believe society should not be created but instead should emerge organically.
This is a form of scepticism for the liberal view of rationality and belief that mankind is capable of defining its own fate.
However Conservative argues that the reality of an unplanned organic society is proof that human life is subject to complex forces beyond the scope of the reason society is not a machine. It’s more like a plant growing away which can not be wholly predicted.
The living elements of a conservative society can be seen in the Symbiotic role of the classes. The upper classes provide the ruling elite, The middle classes provide the wealth creation, and the working class is the production.
Burke views these roles people are born into as a Fixed Compact that is essential and is driven by a sense of duty.
Burke challenged the liberal opposition to hierarchy as we had all been equal in the state of nature arguing instead *that hierarchy was natural and that within our own communities his little platoons *singular figures will rise to the top regardless of class
Burke argued that none of us chooses our position in life, nor consent to the society and hierarchical structure we are born into. We are all born into a family from which a complex web of pre-existing obligations and duties is placed upon us.
Conservatism on society
———————————-
Empiricism - (the idea that all learning comes from only experience and observations)
———————————-
How should conservatives discuss society if society is organic.
Due to this Empirical society what do conservatives prefer over ‘what could be’?
Do conservatives have clear view of how society will develop, what ideology does this challenge?
What does Oakeshott argue about a conservative society?
Which idea did Burke develop these ideas through?
What was reformed based on?
What was Burkes preferred method and were was it derived from?
How most standard of justice be discovered in,And what must ensure?
What type of law do traditional conservatives prefer and why?
Was pragmatism seen in Burkes approach to the causes of the revolution, due to this, which revolution did he support?
The organic nature of society needs conservatives to discuss society in Empirical terms.
This means conservatives prefer evidence and focus on ‘what is’ compared to dreams of ‘what could be’
As a result, they hold no clear view on how it might develop overtime therefore bringing clear challenges to the normative view taken by the progressive ideologies socialism this shows how other ideologies have a clear vision of how society would look in the future.
Oakeshott argued that the Conservative society merely aims to stay afloat in uncertain waters with an intended destination.
Burke developed these ideas through his reference to Pragmatism.
All reform based on current wisdom, not the innovation of some abstract theory or philosophy.
His preferred *method of change would come to known as prescription derived from Roman property law. It discussed the importance of long-standing connections which became custom to live by in present day laws.
This meant standards of justice must be discovered in *practice gradually as organicism demands, ensuring there cannot be a return to the state of nature.
This also shows why traditional Conservatives considered the common law to be so important as it’s able to be altered overtime as new interpretations are made but also a set of legal precedent clearly established over time .
This pragmatism was also seen in Burkes approach towards potential causes of revolution supporting laws in Britain, which kept the excess spending of the monarchy at the time. It also helps us understand why he supported the American revolution in 1776 and not the French revolution in 1789.
Conservatism on society
———————————-
Tradition
———————————-
What makes the empirical society effective?
What is Oakeshott quote about the risk of not having a organic society (plant)?
What does this quote suggest about conservatives view on society?
What was Burkes view on tradition?
What was burkes quote on tradition?
What did Burke link tradition with and what does this make us skeptical of?
What are these prejudices important for?
What does tradition help manage according to Burke?
What can cure psychological illnesses according to Burke?
What do traditions become as they are ingrained in society?
Would we question a new constitutional settlement which remained untested?
Was Burke and other conservatives opposed to change?
What was Burkes quote about chain?
What would not occur if there was no evolution in society
The effectiveness of this empirical society is decided upon the strength it places in tradition, the customs and habits which provide it with security. in an uncertain world, these hold a society, strong with history and experience, shaping whatever changes are necessary. Here Oakeshott connects tradition to that of organicism.
‘Just as a plants new leaves are connected to the pendant off and explained by the plants, roots and branches so societies present directions stems from its past development’
This means conservative, except change, will be inevitable in society, put work to ensure it is slow respectful of the past.
Burke also emphasised that tradition was important as it reflected a set of ideas which had stood the test of time and accumulated wealth of knowledge across the ages which had shown itself to suit the practices of society and be accepted.
He said it’s with infinite caution that any man ought to venture upon pulling down an edifice, which has answered in any tolerable degree for ages the common purpose of society.
Burke linked the tradition established to prejudices as it favours long-standing tradition which makes us sceptical of new ideas which are untested and clash with those which are established.
These prejudices would also be important in revisiting revolutionary ideas which would seek to remove these traditions. These revolutionaries would argue for change based on personal prejudices, which may be presented as rational impact would have no clear basis.
For Burke tradition also helped manage the flaws in our human nature.
Our psychological illnesses about the potential chaos of the world would be managed by the consistency that tradition creates.
Traditions become entrenched in a society that they are well ingrained as laws
Moreover intellectually question the tried and tested operations of the state would make us question the appeal of a new constitutional settlement which remained untested
This did not mean Burke and all Conservatives were opposed to change. They believed change was inevitable, but it must be done in a way to ensure the conservation of what already existed.
He said ‘without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation’
In essence without the evolution of the society a revolution would occur. 
