|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 14, 2022 14:02:50 GMT
I think it would be good to have a thread about social conservatism.
I think it's very important that this forum be open to ALL definitions of conservatism, but I've got to admit that, for me, social conservatism is the most important.
The "ground-rules" of our political discourse make it very hard to argue in favour of social conservatism, as became very obvious during the gay marriage referendum in Ireland. What's it to you if two men want to get married? If you're against gay marriage, don't get one. That kind of thing.
The best argument opponents could find, within the vocabulary of liberal political discourse, was about adoption of children by gay couples. But this seemed a bit of a contrivance.
Personally I'm opposed to gay marriage because it seems wrong that an institution which had one definition for thousands of years-- at least to the extent that it was between man and woman-- should be redefined. All the delicate associations of "husband" and "wife" are diminished if they now mean something quite different. I want the furniture of human life to remain substantially the same and I'm pained by radical ruptures. It's not from any dislike of homosexuals. I accept that gays were treated very badly for centuries, but it's still wrong to change the fundamental institutions of society our of some kind of penance for this. At least, it seems wrong to me.
This is just an example. But an example to show that socially conservative arguments are generally open to two accusations: 1) That you're demanding a say in how other people live their lives, and 2) that you are complaining about something where it seems nobody is actually being harmed, which is the great liberal and libertarian test. ("It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg", as Jefferson famously put it.)
And yet, when I hear such-and-such a person is conservative, what I want to know is: are they SOCIALLY conservative? If they're opposed to government overreach, fine. If they're against political correctness, great. If they are nationalists, wunderbar. But are they socially conservative? Do they defend family, decency, childhood innocence, old and established ways of doing things?
(I should probably include abortion under "socially conservative" issues, although I must admit that abortion seems SO wrong to me that it's wrong by any test whatsoever-- including the liberal and libertarian tests. Ending someone's life is causing them harm by any reasoning. Still, opposition to abortion does generally seem linked to social conservatism.)
|
|
|
Post by Starlight on Mar 14, 2022 17:18:45 GMT
A third generic argument against social conservatism is its arbitrariness. A certain aspect of society should not change simply because it has been that way for a long time.
That argument can be trotted out for any issue at any point in history, including lots of things that from our perspective we are glad changed, because we can see the benefits reaped.
A fourth generic argument is that social mores aren't necessarily morally correct, or just, simply because they have existed for a long time or have become ingrained into the structure of society. The harsh treatment of women in strict Muslim societies, for example, should be stopped no matter how much the social conservatives bemoan the loss of traditional values.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 14, 2022 19:00:14 GMT
A third generic argument against social conservatism is its arbitrariness. A certain aspect of society should not change simply because it has been that way for a long time. That argument can be trotted out for any issue at any point in history, including lots of things that from our perspective we are glad changed, because we can see the benefits reaped. A fourth generic argument is that social mores aren't necessarily morally correct, or just, simply because they have existed for a long time or have become ingrained into the structure of society. The harsh treatment of women in strict Muslim societies, for example, should be stopped no matter how much the social conservatives bemoan the loss of traditional values. True, but we could still argue that there should be a preference for defending institutions rather than getting rid of them-- for the sake of historical continuity. The onus then would be on the reformist to explain why a particular institution is so unjust or producing so much suffering that it needs to be changed.
|
|
|
Post by hilary on Mar 14, 2022 22:07:39 GMT
It seems unlikely that Article 41.2 will survive the current progressive reforms. I like it, I must say. I know the language is a bit old-fashioned but I think it was a sincere recognition of women and a genuine help to mothers (including and maybe especially single mothers). The wording is:
41.2.1"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved". 41.2.2"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home"
The Law Society of Ireland has made a submission to the Citizen's Assembly on Gender Equality recommending that Article 41.2 should be deleted and replaced with an alternative form of language. They say that it is outdated and does not reflect the variety and diversity of experiences women have, "as employees, as carers and as employers in modern Ireland". They agree with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice and Equality that the Article "is sexist and paternalistic and has no place in the Ireland of the 21st century". It does not recognise the work men do as carers and their duties and responsibilities to be carers and it fails to recognise the other type of care including care in the community and care by other family members and friends.
"It includes a definition of family which does not reflect the reality of families in Ireland, nor the diversity of family life. It presumes a male breadwinner and a two parent household where a ‘woman’ stays at home. It does not take into account the reality of lone parents, LGBTQI families, or blended families". "The Society accepts that, in practice, Article 41.2 has been little more than symbolic. Its placement in the Constitution could have led to recognition of the value of the contribution women make through unpaid care work in our society. However, in practice, it has faced minimal judicial scrutiny and has had little or no impact on the positive formulation of social policy or improving the position of women. Instead of supporting the home or family, it has diminished women and again, faced minimal judicial scrutiny when the opportunity arose for the Superior Courts to conduct a textual analysis".
I think the Law Society is missing the point of Article 41.2 and in their rush to erase what they see as outdated and offensive they are not helping women. The Law Society, in my opinion, should not express a view on what is a political matter. They have done this before in relation to the Marriage Equality Referendum and the Children's Referendum. Solicitors have to operate the law whatever the electorate decides. It's really not relevant what the Law Society thinks should be done, but I'm sure people are influenced when the Law Society comes out with their recommendations. I suppose it's the long march through the institutions..
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 14, 2022 22:23:17 GMT
It seems unlikely that Article 41.2 will survive the current progressive reforms. I like it, I must say. I know the language is a bit old-fashioned but I think it was a sincere recognition of women and a genuine help to mothers (including and maybe especially single mothers). The wording is: 41.2.1"In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved". 41.2.2"The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home" The Law Society of Ireland has made a submission to the Citizen's Assembly on Gender Equality recommending that Article 41.2 should be deleted and replaced with an alternative form of language. They say that it is outdated and does not reflect the variety and diversity of experiences women have, "as employees, as carers and as employers in modern Ireland". They agree with the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice and Equality that the Article "is sexist and paternalistic and has no place in the Ireland of the 21st century". It does not recognise the work men do as carers and their duties and responsibilities to be carers and it fails to recognise the other type of care including care in the community and care by other family members and friends. "It includes a definition of family which does not reflect the reality of families in Ireland, nor the diversity of family life. It presumes a male breadwinner and a two parent household where a ‘woman’ stays at home. It does not take into account the reality of lone parents, LGBTQI families, or blended families". "The Society accepts that, in practice, Article 41.2 has been little more than symbolic. Its placement in the Constitution could have led to recognition of the value of the contribution women make through unpaid care work in our society. However, in practice, it has faced minimal judicial scrutiny and has had little or no impact on the positive formulation of social policy or improving the position of women. Instead of supporting the home or family, it has diminished women and again, faced minimal judicial scrutiny when the opportunity arose for the Superior Courts to conduct a textual analysis". I think the Law Society is missing the point of Article 41.2 and in their rush to erase what they see as outdated and offensive they are not helping women. The Law Society, in my opinion, should not express a view on what is a political matter. They have done this before in relation to the Marriage Equality Referendum and the Children's Referendum. Solicitors have to operate the law whatever the electorate decides. It's really not relevant what the Law Society thinks should be done, but I'm sure people are influenced when the Law Society comes out with their recommendations. I suppose it's the long march through the institutions.. I think it's only a matter of time before it goes, too. I have heard people who favour its spirit say that it never actually achieved what it was supposed to. For all the talk of being "outdated", I'm sure that there are many more women who would rather be stay-at-home mothers than there are men who would like to be stay-at-home fathers. And many, many married women who only work because a dual income is now a necessity. My own (American) wife is a big fan of the article.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Mar 22, 2022 15:05:17 GMT
socially conservative arguments are generally open to two accusations: 1) That you're demanding a say in how other people live their lives, and 2) that you are complaining about something where it seems nobody is actually being harmed Another example could be pornography. Many seculars may argue in favour of both 1) and 2) while Catholic social conservatives would go against both those arguments. Bottom line (no pun intented) is the Pilate imperative. If society does not agree on "what is truth?" then least it must be recognised there are two abruptly opposing views and most likely so till the end of times. Social conservatism is wide enough to bring almost any kind of tradition into some kind of value. The decisive question will always be on how to define what is truly important. What makes the humane human so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Starlight on Mar 24, 2022 12:42:41 GMT
We have mentioned the objections to socially conservative arguments, but what are those arguments?
And can they be phrased in a way to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative?
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 24, 2022 14:02:54 GMT
We have mentioned the objections to socially conservative arguments, but what are those arguments? And can they be phrased in a way to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative? I'm sure they COULD be phrased in such a way as to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative, but perhaps only a minority of such people. There are any number of arguments that could be made, I suppose. But the argument I always go for is the desirability of tradition per se. I think people flourish with tradition, they need it, it enriches life. Why else do businesses put up signs that say "established 1859" (or whatever), why else do people research their ancestry, why else do people identify with a national or ethnic tradition....true, you can do this and still favour progressive reforms, but I think a significant amount of people find a cognitive dissonance here and more will do so as the present diverges from any kind of continuity with the present. I don't mean to be self-promoting, but I think I expressed my own best arguments for social conservatism in two articles I wrote for the Burkean, while I'll link to here: www.theburkean.ie/articles/2019/12/23/christmas-a-conservative-festivalwww.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/02/19/the-weight-of-banality
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Mar 24, 2022 14:35:42 GMT
We have mentioned the objections to socially conservative arguments, but what are those arguments? And can they be phrased in a way to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative? I'm sure they COULD be phrased in such a way as to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative, but perhaps only a minority of such people. There are any number of arguments that could be made, I suppose. But the argument I always go for is the desirability of tradition per se. I think people flourish with tradition, they need it, it enriches life. Why else do businesses put up signs that say "established 1859" (or whatever), why else do people research their ancestry, why else do people identify with a national or ethnic tradition....true, you can do this and still favour progressive reforms, but I think a significant amount of people find a cognitive dissonance here and more will do so as the present diverges from any kind of continuity with the present. I don't mean to be self-promoting, but I think I expressed my own best arguments for social conservatism in two articles I wrote for the Burkean, while I'll link to here: www.theburkean.ie/articles/2019/12/23/christmas-a-conservative-festivalwww.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/02/19/the-weight-of-banalityStarlight, what makes something a possible key to seachange will never be something that can be reduced to any small destillation. Christianity has lived for two millennia despite every decline due to heresies and watering down towards more popular paganism and all the rest. There is no secret recipe other than Truth itself. Our Lord - the Truth, Way and Life - may tolerate every sinner and sinful obstinacy for many years but will nonetheless not endure to be mocked forever. If sanity lives on its core Truth Christ is the marvellous Mystery that makes it attractive, not any psychology from the modern agents for it or against it. So the questions are impossible to answer, I´d argue. Or otherwise stated: "to preach/witness/live Christ, will be enough" (=enough for some, i.e. for all but the truly obstinate). You make two execellent question but it´s only reasonable to leave them open? What´s impossible for man is always possible for Love and His united hosts of heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Mar 24, 2022 16:39:59 GMT
I'm sure they COULD be phrased in such a way as to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative, but perhaps only a minority of such people. There are any number of arguments that could be made, I suppose. But the argument I always go for is the desirability of tradition per se. I think people flourish with tradition, they need it, it enriches life. Why else do businesses put up signs that say "established 1859" (or whatever), why else do people research their ancestry, why else do people identify with a national or ethnic tradition....true, you can do this and still favour progressive reforms, but I think a significant amount of people find a cognitive dissonance here and more will do so as the present diverges from any kind of continuity with the present. I don't mean to be self-promoting, but I think I expressed my own best arguments for social conservatism in two articles I wrote for the Burkean, while I'll link to here: www.theburkean.ie/articles/2019/12/23/christmas-a-conservative-festivalwww.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/02/19/the-weight-of-banalityStarlight, what makes something a possible key to seachange will never be something that can be reduced to any small destillation. Christianity has lived for two millennia despite every decline due to heresies and watering down towards more popular paganism and all the rest. There is no secret recipe other than Truth itself. Our Lord - the Truth, Way and Life - may tolerate every sinner and sinful obstinacy for many years but will nonetheless not endure to be mocked forever. If sanity lives on its core Truth Christ is the marvellous Mystery that makes it attractive, not any psychology from the modern agents for it or against it. So the questions are impossible to answer, I´d argue. Or otherwise stated: "to preach/witness/live Christ, will be enough" (=enough for some, i.e. for all but the truly obstinate). You make two execellent question but it´s only reasonable to leave them open? What´s impossible for man is always possible for Love and His united hosts of heaven. I wouldn't entire agree with you here. First of all, I'd say social conservatism isn't exclusive to Christians, or even to religious believers. And also that social conservatives SHOULD come up with some kind of arguments to convince their opponents, even if they are not arguments that follow the logic of liberal discourse. But, even in the case of Christians, I think Christians should have rational arguments for their faith anyway. "Always be prepared to make a defence of the hope that is in you", 1 Peter 3:15. As well as you can, at any rate.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Mar 25, 2022 11:43:57 GMT
Starlight, what makes something a possible key to seachange will never be something that can be reduced to any small destillation. Christianity has lived for two millennia despite every decline due to heresies and watering down towards more popular paganism and all the rest. There is no secret recipe other than Truth itself. Our Lord - the Truth, Way and Life - may tolerate every sinner and sinful obstinacy for many years but will nonetheless not endure to be mocked forever. If sanity lives on its core Truth Christ is the marvellous Mystery that makes it attractive, not any psychology from the modern agents for it or against it. So the questions are impossible to answer, I´d argue. Or otherwise stated: "to preach/witness/live Christ, will be enough" (=enough for some, i.e. for all but the truly obstinate). You make two execellent question but it´s only reasonable to leave them open? What´s impossible for man is always possible for Love and His united hosts of heaven. I wouldn't entire agree with you here. First of all, I'd say social conservatism isn't exclusive to Christians, or even to religious believers. And also that social conservatives SHOULD come up with some kind of arguments to convince their opponents, even if they are not arguments that follow the logic of liberal discourse. But, even in the case of Christians, I think Christians should have rational arguments for their faith anyway. "Always be prepared to make a defence of the hope that is in you", 1 Peter 3:15. As well as you can, at any rate. My point was no more than that arguments, even the best batalions of them, won´t convince in the face of life within sins framework. No matter how good the arguments, only Christ as the Person can really make any real change. I do not think it´s about reason or logic or common sense when we talk about yes or no in these matters. Either you believe in the unquestionably good - the seachange reality recognising how God is Love - or you for some reason don´t. The choice may be "informed" (or not so much so) but the only changing subject is the Person calling the heart, ultimately same goes for the unbeliever, and the human person either ignoring or recognising.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Mar 25, 2022 11:47:27 GMT
We have mentioned the objections to socially conservative arguments, but what are those arguments? And can they be phrased in a way to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative? I'm sure they COULD be phrased in such a way as to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative, but perhaps only a minority of such people. There are any number of arguments that could be made, I suppose. But the argument I always go for is the desirability of tradition per se. I think people flourish with tradition, they need it, it enriches life. Why else do businesses put up signs that say "established 1859" (or whatever), why else do people research their ancestry, why else do people identify with a national or ethnic tradition....true, you can do this and still favour progressive reforms, but I think a significant amount of people find a cognitive dissonance here and more will do so as the present diverges from any kind of continuity with the present. I don't mean to be self-promoting, but I think I expressed my own best arguments for social conservatism in two articles I wrote for the Burkean, while I'll link to here: www.theburkean.ie/articles/2019/12/23/christmas-a-conservative-festivalwww.theburkean.ie/articles/2020/02/19/the-weight-of-banalitySecular arguments for social conservatism in general is another matter of course. In that case the conclusion from me would be very much the same as your own above.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Mar 25, 2022 12:00:14 GMT
We have mentioned the objections to socially conservative arguments, but what are those arguments? And can they be phrased in a way to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative? God is Love and wants us to recognise this in all its aspects. Sins are not allowed, everyhting else is. It won´t convince many by themselves. But whenever the very words of Our Lord Himself in Holy Writ does not help modern men admitting "social conservative" as equal to the entire "good, beauty, truth - etc!" nothing else will either. I don´t know any arguments possible to convince apart from relating to God´s Will. May look ridiculous but the blame can perhaps be only half on the fool in vain trying to reach.
|
|
|
Post by Starlight on Mar 29, 2022 12:17:59 GMT
We have mentioned the objections to socially conservative arguments, but what are those arguments? And can they be phrased in a way to convince someone who isn't already a social conservative? God is Love and wants us to recognise this in all its aspects. Sins are not allowed, everyhting else is. It won´t convince many by themselves. But whenever the very words of Our Lord Himself in Holy Writ does not help modern men admitting "social conservative" as equal to the entire "good, beauty, truth - etc!" nothing else will either. I don´t know any arguments possible to convince apart from relating to God´s Will. May look ridiculous but the blame can perhaps be only half on the fool in vain trying to reach. I'd strongly resist bring God's will as an argument to support social conservativism. A Muslim could use the same logic to support his social conservatism and there would be no way to argue against him effectively.
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Mar 29, 2022 13:10:41 GMT
God is Love and wants us to recognise this in all its aspects. Sins are not allowed, everyhting else is. It won´t convince many by themselves. But whenever the very words of Our Lord Himself in Holy Writ does not help modern men admitting "social conservative" as equal to the entire "good, beauty, truth - etc!" nothing else will either. I don´t know any arguments possible to convince apart from relating to God´s Will. May look ridiculous but the blame can perhaps be only half on the fool in vain trying to reach. I'd strongly resist bring God's will as an argument to support social conservativism. A Muslim could use the same logic to support his social conservatism and there would be no way to argue against him effectively. Isn´t that an eminent option for religious dialogue rather? If we do understand, officially, there is only one God, understood - or misunderstood - differently, it´s possible to try as the obvious node for encounter.
|
|