דבריך היו נכונים, לו השמרנות האידיאלית היא רק כזו שאינה סוטה כמלא נימה מהדעות הקדומות. דברי יהיו נכונים, אם גם מה שאני רואה כשמרנות, קרי: מסגרת מסוימת לחיפוש, ועדפת דעה שמרנית ידועה על פני ספק דעה אחרת שאינה ידועה לי כעת, גם היא היתה נחשבת לשמרנות, ולא לאיזה יצור כלאים של שמרנות ורדיקליות.
מעבר לשאלה הפורמלית, איך להגדיר את שמרנותי שלי, יש כאן משהו שהזקיק אותי לדחוף את אפי כאן: ההתעלמות מהשמרנות הזו, והעמדת שתי הדרכים הקיצוניות כשתי אלטרנטיבות יחידות. דומה וגם כוחו של טיעונך בהקשר לנושא האשכול, שואב את כוחו מההעמדה מוזרה זו. ולזה אני מתנגד, וגם האחרים שתלו את השמרנות בפרשנויות אחרות משלך, לא התכוונו לשמרנות של נטורי קרתא.
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 05:24
Yedidi Meitzitz-
First of all, I would like to apologize to everyone for all the meshuggene typos in my earlier messages. I know sending out messages full of typos is unacceptable carelesness and a lack of consideration for the readers. I ask forgiveness from all of you and I hereby commit myself to exercise more care in my messages from now on.
Meitztitz, you seem to be disturbed by what you see as the conservatives' failure to address ultimate moral questions.
You say, ultimately, there is no argument given in the conservative discourse as to why I should seek the preservation of society. Why should one not seek always to identify with the downtrodden and be indifferent to the future of societies that seem rife with injustice? What is the moral principle behind the conservatives' dseire for social stability and continuity? It seems to be no more than a matter of the conservative feeling an attachment to the specific social arrangements typical of the society into which he was born.
1. I would like to address myself to your question by focusing on one of Edmund Burke's main points. Burke attacked the French philosophes' way of going about things. These people, he said, ( I am not giving any exact quotes here.) sit in a room and think about Reason. What is the most rational way for a human society to be set up? Once the philosophes come up with what they take to be the most rational response to any social problem, they go ahead and write it down in one of their books. They propose, nay, demand that things in the real world be changed to accord with their pristine vision of rationality.
Burke objected to this procedure. It seems that many have believed that his objection was based on the fact that he did not believe in moral absolutes. According to this view, Burke simply believed that each society ought to be allowed to develop in its own way, in accordance with its own traditions. There ought to be no place for criticism coming from the "outside".
However, I have come across other readings of Burke. Those who put forth these other readings also point to statements of Burke wherein he proclaimed his belief in moral absolutes.
The idea is that yes, there are moral absolutes. However, what good does it do us to cling to some pristine conception of moral absolutes without dealing with the problem of real world consequences?
I think Burke's point is something like this: One way of looking at the question of ethics in politcs is to focus on the guiding principles of the statesmen under examination. Are they motivated by concern for, are they seeking Justice?
Using this standard, we would approve of statesmen who seek justice and disapprove of those who are overly concerned with maintaining themselves in power and/or are relatively indifferent to questions of justice
Burke proposed a different standard. Let us judge politics, let us judge policies in terms of the question: What effect are these policies likely to have in the real world?
This is, of course, what might be called a more pragmatic orientation.
Is this policy likely to increase the amount of justice in the real world? Or is it likely to increase human suffering?
It is not difficult to see that any number of policies that are motivated by the purest of intentions might, in fact, lead only to an increase in human suffering if we were to attempt to carry them out in the real world.
Ideal notions of Justice have value in terms of being models toward which we strive but we can never hope to simply actualize ideal notions of justice in the real world. The real world is too complicated for that.
Burke argued that it is foolhardy to ignore historical realities. It may well be true that in the case of a certain country history has unfolded in a way that has brought about a great deal of injustice in that society. However, Burke would say that, even in that case, we cannot afford to ignore history. Because, if we ignore history or attempt to bypass it- in our zeal for justice- WE WILL WIND UP MAKING THINGS WORSE.
If it should, in fact, be the case in a given situation, that a realistic appraisal leads us to the conclusion that attempting to change things in the direction of more justice in a society , quickly, radically, would only make things worse- Is it then still morally correct to seek to make the radical change anyway?
One might put this in the kabbalistic parlance: Moral absolutes are beautiful and radiant in the Oilom HoAtzilus but there is a problem with the hishtalshelus leoilom ho'assiyoh.
The real world is complicated and history cannot be wished away.
Burke believed that the French Revolutionaries proclaimed their allegiance to the radiant ideals of liberte, egalite, fraternite, but in the real world the French revolution was about Terror and the spilling of much innocent blood.
Burke and others believed that French intellectuals would have done better to seek slow reform under the existing monarchical system.
(BTW- Alexis de Tocqueville, the author of Democracy in America, a true liberal and friend of democracy also wrote a book called -The Ancien Regime and the French Revolution- in which he essentially agreed with Burke's Understanding of the reality of the French Revolution)e.)
2.Someone once said that the concerns of anyone seeking a humane politics are threefold: Freedom, Justice and Order. Any humane society must seek some kind of decent balance among these three principles.
There is a conservative argument to the effect that one who is overly zealous for the cause of justice without a sufficient concomitant concern for order will wind up bringing about a situation where there is NEITHER JUSTICE NOR ORDER.
Justice is truly one of the outstanding good features of a humane society. It must be understood however, that absolutely any and all social goods are dependent upon the maintenance of order.When order breaks down in a society beyond a certain point we are basically left with nothing. People can become subject to random violent attacks and no man/woman is secure in his/her life or property. Does that constitute justice?
The really tough point about this line of thought is that it demands that we put up with a certain amount of injustice. I know this is hard to swallow. However, if the conservative is right and realistically speaking, perfect justice is unattainable and the attempt to bring it about will ultimately cause more suffering- whose position is the more moral one? Is it the position of the cautious conservative or that of the wild- eyed radical aflame with his vision of perfect justice?
So- when we consider radical new ideas, like extreme versions of animal rights ideology, we are entitled to ask- not only the question: What are the absolute rights and wrongs of the question? - but also- What are the likely social consequences of pushing for the adoption of this ideology?
(A basic point here is- The radical accuses the conservative of being cold-hearted, indifferent to human suffering and injustice. The conservative answers by accusing the radical of being out of touch with reality. The conservative believes that the radical is insanely optimistic. He (the radical) seems to believe that all injustices can be remedied and pretty damn quick too. The conservative thinks the radical is insanely utopian, an overgrown teenager etc.)סשמאל]
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 06:01
Meitzitz, Ben Ish Echad-
I am shtark maskim to Ben Ish Echad here. I think that what you, Meitzitz are presenting here is a caricature of humane conservatism.
Serious, humane conservstives are not against any and all changes under any and all circumstances. I do not think opposition to all change was the position of Burke and I'm absolutely certain that it is not the position of Isaiah Berlin.
The conservative position has to do with a certain caution. It has to do with a tendency to refuse automatic support for any and all changes, including changes that are being suggested in the name of bringing about a more just world.
The conservatives say- you think you will improve the world by changing things but BEWARE! You may be making things worse. The conservative accuses the radical of being wild and unrealistic because of his tendency to refuse to take history and tradition into account at allסשמאל]
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 06:20
Meitzitz-
I do not think that a conservative must be committed to a position of moral relativism. One might say there is an absolute moral truth.
The conservative says that THE REALIZATION OF THE ABSOLUTE MORAL TRUTH IN THE REAL WORLD OF HUMAN AFFAIRS IS NO SIMPLE MATTER. The conservative says we cannot hope to just change the world for the better by simply proclaiming that it must improve or by legislating it to perfection.
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 07:00
Meitzitz
I would like to briefly state- sum up- some of the points I have sought to make here concerning the conservative point of view.
1. The question of the absolute moral truth is not the only relevant consideration
2. The question of the likely social consequences, real world consequences of the adoption of a certain policy or ideology is also a relevant consideration.
3.In thinking about the real world, it make sense to take inevitable human weaknesses and tendencies into account. Man is not a wholly rational animal. He is also a creature of sentiments and passions. Any ideology that wishes to ignore that fact does so at its own peril and is ipso facto dangerous.
4.One of the considerations that is of great importance apart from the absolute moral truth is- the maintenance of a sense of tradition and social continuity.
5. The maintenance of a sense of tradition and social continuity is important because human beings need a sense of rootedness and continuity. Without that they feel lost, become disoriented.
6.However, the maintenance of a sense of tradition and social continuity is important not only for the reason given in 5. Even when we focus our concern on the realization of moral absolutes in the world it behooves us to take the values of tradition and social continuity into consideration.
7.6 is true. It is important for us to take the values of social continuity and tradition into account when focusing on the realization of moral absolutes in the real world. This is because -a) if we allow the sense of social continuity and tradition to become too much undermined we will be courting social breakdown. The outbreak of social disorder is, of course, undesirable in itself. Also, obviously social breakdown does not serve the cause of absolute morality. Morality can only be realizes within the context of a decently stable society. b) Most people are not philosophers. The only realistic way of inculcating any decent sense of morality in people is by means of a TRADITION. Morality must be taught to ordinary people as absolute and moral truths must be handed down from generation to generation. Without the presence of moral tradition, the world would revert to savagery. Even short of a reversion to savagery, radical change in moral values (radical means- coming very quickly)- can cause moral confusion in many people. What results in the real world of human interaction is confusion and chaos, not real moral improvement.
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 07:37
Meitzitz-
Vayter innem inyon-
1.
I -Based on what I- have written above
Getting specific- When I think about the question e-How much moral consideration ought we to give to animals- the question of- what is the absolute moral truth about human obligations to animals- is not the only question that concerns me.
2. I am also concerned about the question- what would be the likely social consequences of our conceiving of animals as having rights- beyond a certain point.
3. In general, I am not convinced that all good lies on the side of the universalizing tendency. I am referring to that tendency in moral discourse that tends to extend the sphere of moral sympathy.
4. I think that there is often much good on the particularizing side, on the side that constricts the range of moral sympathy.
5. The good that I am referring to in 4is that, in the nature of things , when sympathies are more constricted and focused, the sympathy experienced is stronger. When the range of sympathy is broadened, the sympathy tends to become weaker and more diffuse.(This is the type of thing I was talking about when I brought up the issue of the Haredi world versus the Modern world - above)
6. Therefore, I am concerned that moving too far, too quickly in the direction of extending sympathy to animals will wind up weakening the general human bond, the feeling people have for one another. I am disturbed by an ideological push in the direction of undermining our sense of the specialness of humanity.
7. I am concerned over radical breaks within the Western tradition. Such radical breaks, such as the extension of more than a certain amount of sympathy to animals undermine the sense of continuity in society and lead to moral confusion which does nobody any good.סשמאל]
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 08:01
Meitzitz-
I would like to focus now, as sharply as I can on your question about conservatives and relativism. Conservatives seem to be always speaking out in defense of the status quo. Does this mean that justice means something different in every generation?
No, not necessarily.
Conservatives are suspicious of change. They believe that change often or almost always or always comes at a cost.
Societies need continuity and a sense of tradition in order to be healthy. Some proposed changes run the risk of leading to social breakdown.
Even those changes that don't seem to involve any risk of social breakdown might also bring with them unintended evil consequences. None of us can predict the future with any great degree of accuracy. When you change things, you are messing with things. You are trying to improve things but you might actually be making things worse.
I think this is a basic conservative point here. Conservatives tend to think that radicals have too much faith in human reason and human understanding. Conservatives often try to push the point that we ought not to be so sure that we always know what we are doing.
Human relations and social structures are delicate things that, on the whole, need to develop over time in order to work. It ill behooves us to mess with things precipitately.
Justice does not change from generation to generation.
However, pure abstract justice as it exists in the heaven of Platonic forms is not the only relevant consideration. We must also weigh the likely social costs of change. Conservatives, over the course of the generations have tended to believe that change usually exacts a terrible cost in terms of human suffering.
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 09:34
Meitzitz-
1. Hamasoret hamaaravit hu mah shekovea
2. Why? because we can't live without a tradition. Hamasoret hamaaravit is the tradition we have
There is the famous argument presented by William James It is James' version of Pascal's wager.
James argues that one might wager on religious belief because one thinks it might be true, because one thinks it might give one eternal life, salvation.
James goes on to deal with the question: Why is it legitimate to wager on the religion of one's own culture? There are also other religions practiced and believed in in other cultures. Those other religions proclaim their own paths to salvation. If one seeks to be intellectually honest, is one not obligated to investigate the many claims of other religions that represent faraway cultures?
James answers that it is practically impossible to investigate all religious claims in the course of one human lifetime. To advocate that one do that is simply to advocate paralysis.
We are entitled, claims James, to distinguish between living and non-living options. For someone raised in the West, Christianity is a living option. It is part of his cultural heritage. On the other hand, in most cases there is simply no real chance that a westerner will get up and become a Hindu. Why should we require him to waste his time investigating al sorts of religious traditions that are foreign to him and concerning which there is no real chance that he will embrace them. Practically speaking, it only makes sense to require him to investigate his own tradition, the living option. Thus his wager on the religion that is part of his cultural heritage is legitimate.
It is true that it is not possible for any one individual to investigate all religions and all traditions. The fact is that we must have moral guidance; we must have some tradition by which to live. The Western tradition is our living option.
I also think our moral intuition tells us that our own Western tradition stands in some significant relation to the absolute moral truth. I think we are entitled to say that the light of absolute moral truth is reflected, albeit imperfectly, in our Western tradition.
We cannot wait, as individuals, or as a society for any number of philosophers to come to the end of their investigations. The philosophers never come to the end of their investigations. We must have a morality by which we can live right now. No decent human being, no decent society can go even one day without possessing a moral code. The Western tradition is the place from which we take our direction.
Meitzitz, I can see from the way you speak that you don't like this kind of talk. It sounds too relativistic to you and you want- haEmet hamuchletet, the absolute truth. You think we ought at least to attempt to reach the absolute truth. Indeed, this is the traditional characteristic of the philosopher in the West, the philosopher's virtue, the search for absolute truth.
I am going to echo Leo Strauss and his followers here. First of all, it must be understood that society cannot simply depend on the philosophers for its sense of ethical values. It is impossible to imagine a society that could survive without some sense of tradition.
Philosophers ought to be aware that their discourse can undermine society. Being perfectly rational about it, there is so much that can be questioned but there is a limit to the amount of questioning that a society can tolerate. The real lives of the majority of people who are perforce not philosophers need to be conducted right here and now. Society has need of tradition.
One might say that is all well and good for society but the philosophical elite must be allowed to get on with its philosophising, its search for the absolute truth
In answer to that, I would say it is one thing when philosophers do their thing in obscurity. It is quite a different thing when various points of view are injected into the public discourse. When that happens, it is appropriate for people who are concerned for the moral health of society to raise their voices in protest when they see ideas bandied about which could be morally harmful. Clearly, the discussion of animal rights has found its way into the public sphere.
It is even true concerning the philosophers themselves that they have need of tradition. For even a philosopher, like every other human being stands in need of a code by which to live right here and now, long before he comes to the end of his investigations.
It is true that the Western tradition is a tradition of openness to change, a tradition that allows for self-critique. However, there have been many (the conservatives) who have argued that many in the West allow themselves to be too open to change, too ready to embrace change and not mindful enough of the possible consequences..
I do not think it would be a good thing for Western society to heed only those voices that call for change and greater justice. There must also be a place for the voice that emphasizes the necessity of tradition and warns against the dangers of openness.
Human society is not a laboratory on which intellectuals are entitled to conduct experiments.
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 10:48
Meitzitz-
1. I understand that one might object to what I am saying here by making the point that one might use this kind of conservative discourse to object to all change.
2. The answer is , I think, that a mature thoughful individual seeks an appropriate balance between the need for change in the direction of more justice on the one hand and the need for stability and continuity on the other.
3. One might ask: can you articulate a clear standard as to when one should advocate change and when one should seek to maintain stability.
4. My answer to the challenge posed in 3 is that no, I can't articulate a clear standard. I think you are right , Meitzitz, in saying that it's all a question of neemanut to our moral intuitions. There doesn't seem to be a clear standard that we can articulate and that would apply in all situations.
5. I consider myself somewhat conservative by today's standards. I consider myself conservative because I find myself more concerned about the maintenance of continuity and stability, more concerned about breakdown and decadence in society than seems fashionable these days.
6. Since, as previously stated, I don't see any possibility of articulating a clear standard, all I can do in communicating with people is to try to get them to see how I see things by giving them a sense of my concerns. I hope I have succeeded in communicating some sense of my concerns in the course of this discussion.
7.Much of what i am saying here revolves around a point made by Isaiah Berlin. The point is that in our time we no longer believe as did many among the greeks that we could simply find the truth and all would be well. Rather, we see reality in terms of tradeoffs. We must sacrifice certain goods in order to obtain other goods.
8.Throughout this discussion, I have been attempting to pull away, to a certain extent, from what I see as the dominant Enlightenment discourse with its stress on universalism, the extension of sympathies and agitation for change in the name of greater justice. I have been attempting to put in a word for particularism and tradition.
9. Meitzitz, you wrote that most people associate the left-wing point of view with relativism and conservatism with belief in moral absolutes. A a historical shift has taken place with reference to this ideological faceoff. At the turn of the 19th Ce., it was conservatives like Burke who were accusing the revolutionaries of being overly devoted to moral absolutes and not giving enough consideration to historical and cultural differences. in recent years, many left- wingers have adopted relativistic positions. My impression is that this has something to do with guilt over Western imperialism. It is felt in left-wing circles that belief in the objective superiority of Western values, even such values as democracy and human rights was used to justify imperialism and the subjugation of non- Western culture.
A left-wing response has been to refuse to express allegiance to any cultural values, to proclaim all cultures as equal etc.
BTW- I think it was quite perceptive of you to pick up on the connection between conservatism and a certain kind of relativizing tendency-
I think there are probably other factors operating in the recent left-wing embrace of relativism but they escape me at the moment.
10. You say- if we all listen to each other long enough, if we are open to the Eastern discourse, if we listen in tolerance we shall arrive at the truth. You have quite a bit of faith there. We also might get thoroughly confused and lose our moral bearings long before we find the truth.
11.Concerning the question as to whether it can be fairly argued that concern for animals is as deeply rooted in the Western tradition as is concern for human justice and equality- I certainly disagree with you here. There are no examples of anyone putting forth animals as equal to humans on the moral plane. Also, the examples of expression of support for the idea of human justice and equality are far more numerous than are references to the evil inherent in cruelty to animals.
12. RE: Slavery- As far as I know, there are no ancient Jewish sources that express opposition to slavery as an institution. In fact, I believe that there are no Greco-Roman sources that express opposition to slavery as an institution. HoweverI was arguing for a certain rootedness of egalitarian ideas because the idea of the common humanity and the spiritual equality of master and slave is there.t
נשלח ב-29/8/2005 11:05
RE: the question itself- how much consciousness do animals have- can we say that they suffer in our sense of the word?
Sometimes I think it's gantz biter- in my observations of cats and dogs from close up - it seemed to me that they had something like human emotions and personality, - that they get happy, get lonely, show affection, like to play games with rules etc.
When we think about suffering and consciousness, I think it really has alot to do with memory- the possibility of being emotionally scarred, traumatized and expectation- I think most of us would agree that if we had to suffer intensely for a very short period of time and afterwards, we would forget the experience completely, then the matter wouldn't be that important
All this seems to have something to do with an ongoing sense of self- a sense of continuity of experience- I think we think that has something to do with language, with our ability to articulate things to ourselves and to others- Of course, animals don't have language-
Of course, I'm aware that once I bring it down to language- it becomes problematic in terms of infants or the mentally disabled- those who are mentally undeveloped among humans-
In emmesen arayn- ikh veys nisht, ikh veys nisht
נשלח ב-30/8/2005 00:54
שרירא,
אחרי כל כתב ההגנה הארוך והיפהפה הזה לשמרנות, לא נותר לי אלא להסיר את כובעי (לו היה לי אחד).
רק אציין לספר 'עימות בין השקפות' מאת תומס סואל, המציג בצורה בהירה את ההבדלים בין ההשקפה המסורתית (המכונה שם: ההשקפה הגדורה, דהיינו שמכירה במגבלות טבע האדם) להשקפה הרדיקלית (המכונה שם: ההשקפה הלא-גדורה, כלומר הטוענת שהאדם הוא טוב מעיקרו וגם בעל ידע מספיק), על שורשיהם והסתעפויותיהם. מומלץ בחום.
------------
ברשותך, לטובת כל מי שלא היה לו כוח לקרוא דברים כה ארוכים באנגלית (לי זה לקח די הרבה זמן...), אתמצת בקיצור נמרץ מאוד, ואוסיף את ההשלכות (הרחבות מודעות שלי צבועות בירוק) כפי שאני מבין אותן:
ההשקפה השמרנית, עיקרה בכך שהיא מסתייגת משינויים קיצוניים בחברה, משום שהשלכותיהם של שינויים כאלה, גם אם נעשים הם בכוונה טובה, עלולות להיות הרסניות יותר מהמצב הקיים, בעצם ערעורה את הקיים. מעבר לכך, לא תמיד כל אחד יכול לדעת את האמת האבסולוטית, ואדם לא יכול להיות 'נע ונד'. לכן, צריך אדם מסורת.
אמנם, היו שינויים במהלך ההיסטוריה (דמוקרטיה, ביטול העבדות, וכו'), אך לאלו תמיד היו שורשים גם בתקופה העתיקה, ועל כן כל אלו נכללים בתוך טבע האדם, ולכן לא בלתי-נמנעים ו(בסופו של דבר) יכולים לצאת אל הפועל.
מה שאין כן בנושאים כמו השוואת זכויותיהם של בעלי החיים לבני האדם (להבדיל מצער בעלי חיים), שלזה אין תקדים בהיסטוריה האנושית, ועל כן שינוי קיצוני כזה מצריך נטישת ערכים (מהותיים!) ישנים, שלא יכול להיעשות ללא סיבה טובה מאוד, וגם כך - בהדרגתיות מרובה.
נקודה בסיסית היא שדבר בא על חשבון דבר. אימוץ פזיז של ההשקפה הרדיקלית החדשה יבוא על חשבון קרבנות של ההשקפה הישנה (אם בעלי חיים שווים לבני אדם, מה שקורה היום, טבח שיטתי של מיליוני בעלי חיים מדי יום, גרוע מן השואה. וידוע שכדי למנוע שואה לא חוסכים באמצעים), וייתכן שגם בראייתה של ההשקפה החדשה (אם בכלל היא נכונה ומוצדקת, מה שמוטל בספק גדול) הדבר יהיה הרסני, מכיון שאיננו יכולים לחזות את התוצאות של שינוי רדיקלי מעין זה.
אני מקווה שהבאתי נכונה את 'רוח דבריך', וכעת נוכל להמשיך באון הלאה.
נשלח ב-30/8/2005 02:34
HaPiratuni-
Thank you very much for the compliment-
and for the sikkum which I find quite good
1. Historical honesty- I am not prepared to say that conservatives were always on the side of democracy because it is an idea that is rooted in the Western tradition- Burke distinguished between the demand for traditional rights on the one hand and and the demand for absolute rights on the other . He expressed sympathy for the American revolutionaries who were, as he saw it, demanding no more than the traditional rights of Englishmen- parliamentary representation- (No taxation without representation)- On the other hand he expressed hostilty to the demands of the French Revolutionaries because he saw them as not being rooted in French tradition and history. In addition, Burke was involved in the impeachment of Warren Hastings who was a British governor in India for abuses Hastings was accused of committing there.
One of the complaints Burke lodged against Hastings was that he attempted to impose British democratic norms on the Indians who, said Burke, were used to living under priestly despotic rule! Burke argued that the Indians were used to this priestly despotic rule and it had served them well and who are we to force them to change their ways.
If we are to accept that Burke believed in absolute morality (I believe he once made a statement, something like- There is only one good- at all times and places)- then I think we must say one of two things- either a) Burke believed that all societies ought to evolve in the direction of democracy but - the key word is evolve- each society ought to be allowed to proceed at its own pace- no revolutions, please!- no sudden changes and certainly no changes imposed from the outside or-
-b) there is only one good and that is the good of humanity- the good is whatever will be most just and allow for human flourishing- concerning this it is impossible to define any one system of government that would be everywhere the best- the histories and traditions of various societies differ greatly from one another- so that the question of the good society has many answers- each society has its own answer- what works in one place will not necessarily work in another-
2. Burke and many other conservatives liked to compare society to an organism and they used to like to speak of change as desirable only if it is organic- if it develops "by itself " through the unfolding of the societal dynamic as opposed to changes brought about by the conscious activities of intellectuals. I find this quite a difficult concept- what changes exactly are we to view as organic- obviously so much that happens in society is a result of conscious decisions made by various actors- I don't know if the concept is coherent but it's a big thing for Burke and many other conservatives
3. Let me be perfectly honest here- there are conservatives and there are conservatives. Samuel Johnson, Burke's friend despised the Americans saying -Why we is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of negro slaves- he was also constantly expressing sympathy for American Indians- he proclaimed his love for a Spanish university where a debate was held at which the cause of the Indians was defended and Spanish abuses condemned- so in those ways he seems to have held opinions that we would approve of-
However, Johnson believed in maintaining aristocratic privilege- he said that in an equal opportunity society most people would be unhappy- Those people who do not achieve much in the way of success, who do not attain to high social status would, in a free society have noone to blame but themselves - and in the nature of things their numbers are bound to be legion- whereas in a static stratified society people would have more security and could always comfort themselves with the knowledge that their low status in society is something for which they are not to blame for they were born into it
So- what are we to say to Johnson- there are conservatives and there are conservatives-
4.It is clear to me that any number of conservatives in the past defended the continued existence of institutions we would find abhorrent - such as slavery. I am certainly not going to mount a defense of slavery here- but I know that there have been conservatives who have argued that slavery would have withered away in thr American South within a few generations anyway. The abolitionist fervor of Lincoln and his cohorts brought about the American Civil War in which thousands of men were killed, the country was torn apart, leaving wounds that took generations to heal and the US did not make a serious attempt to integrate Blacks into society for a hundred years anyway, the principle of states' rights was undermined with a concomitant growth of federal power etc. A kind of conservative argument that I am certainly not going to endorse but which is disturbingly fascinating.
5. Based on all of the above- What I said about equal rights for humans being rooted in the Western tradition making certain developments legitimate as opposed to animal rights and/or equality- that's my own shtikkl toireh and I am not claiming that the well-known conservatives of the past would endorse it
6. When we speak of conservatism, we are not necessarily speaking of an ideology. Remember, conservatives are suspicious of ideology, feeling that ideological certainty is so often a (dangerous) form of hubris. In order to express a conservative point of view on any given issue or in any given political context, I don't think it is required for the proponent of said point of view to be willing to endorse all kinds of things said by conservatives in earlier generations. The conservative tendency is a matter of certain thoughtful individuals saying in a given context- Enough! We cannot simply embrace every change, we must also have tradition and continuity, we cannot have endless open- mindedness, if we try to we shall more or less go mad, we shll lose our bearings. I am trying to say that it is not necessary to view conservatism in terms of some clear shitoh or mesorah that passed down a very specific message through the generations.
I do not find it illegitimate for an intellectual or thoughtful person to say that I accept the changes that have been instituted before but I think it's time to stop now, to maintain some continuity, at least for a time.
Left- wingers might object- where is the consistency? Why do you view the earlier changes as legitimate and the presently proposed changes as illegitimate?
I think the conservative answer to that objection is-
Is it to be taken as an a priori truth that change is always for the better? Is it to be considered out of bounds to point out the possible or even likely costs of change? Is there anything irrational about the belief that some changes improved things in the world but other changes are likely to make things worse? e Perhaps, in many contexts it would be best to think of conservatism , not as a worked out ideology replete with doctrines of its own- but rather as a certain tendency, a certain ideational and sentimental bent. I am not convinced that conservatism ought to be considered an inferior sort of political orientation even if it often seems to lack definite ideological content.
נשלח ב-30/8/2005 02:41
HaPiratuni-
Specifically, I would like to thank you for making the point that conservatives tend to be a lot more suspicious of human nature- left -wingers think- human beings are basically good and just need to be liberated- Con.s are much more more cautious, suspicious and pessimistic- I should have made this point in the course of my lange droshos but I didn't- e
נשלח ב-30/8/2005 02:56
שרירא
יישר כוח על דבריך המפורטים. גם אני מסיר את כובעי בפני כתב ההגנה המרשים ואני חושב שמן הראוי היה שמישהו יתרגם את דבריך יותר בהרחבה (וייש"כ להפרעתוני).
אני חושב שאני מקבל רוב ממה שאתה אומר , אבל אני עדיין עומד על שלי לגבי אי אלו נקודות חשובות.
חשוב לי להבהיר שאני כשלעצמי אינני רדיקליסט ואם גם לא הייתי מגדיר את עצמי כשמרן , אני מבכר גישה פרגמטית , זהירה ומחוברת למציאות על פני דבקות בלתי מתפשרת בעקרונות מופשטים . וככל שזה נוגע לדיון באשכול זה, אני מתנגד לא פחות ממך לרעיון של השוואת זכויות בעלי חיים לזכויות האדם. מה שאני כן טוען הוא שמכיוון שכך, מכיוון שאיננו הולכים בעקבותיהם של פילוסופים כמו קאנט שהמוסר הוא מדע כמו מדע המכאניקה , אין מנוס מהכרה מכאיבה ביחסיות של הערכים .
נכון, ברמת העקרונות הבסיסיים , יש גרעין משותף לכל מערכות הערכים . בכל התרבויות ובכל הזמנים , מוסר וצדק הם אודות עזרה לחלש , מניעת סבל , אנושיות וכו'. אבל ברמת היישום תרבויות שונות נחלקות יותר מדי זו מזו . במידה ואנו מבססים את המוסר על המסורת והרגש , אין מנוס מהכרה כזו בלגיטימיות של עקרונות סותרים מדי , שמחלישה במאד מאד את היכולת שלנו לדרוש דבקות בערכים שלנו ולקרוא בשמם.
נשלח ב-30/8/2005 02:57
ביתר פירוט, אני מקבל את הנקודות הבאות בדבריך:
א. שלשבת בחדר ולחשוב על הצדק האידאלי אינו מספיק, אלא יש להתחשב בתוצאות המעשיות של כל שינוי ועל מה שמתרחש בעולם העשייה. שינויים רדיקליים מביאים בדרך כלל לפחות צדק ולא ליותר צדק ולכן יש להתפשר על שינויים איטיים והדרגתיים.
ב. שהסדר הוא ערך חשוב כשלעצמו, לצד צדק וחירות. בחיי המעשה תיתכן סתירה בין הצדק לסדר ולכן יש להתפשר לפעמים על פחות צדק , לצורך קיום הסדר.
ג. שהשכל האנושי הוא מוגבל ושום אדם אינו יכול לקחת על עצמו את האחריות לומר שהנה מה שהוא חשב בשכלו עומד כנגד כל המסורת ועל בסיס זה להסתכן בשינויים רדיקליים.
ד. שחיי החברה מורכבים מכדי שאפשר יהיה לשחק איתם בניסויים פילוסופיים . אלה יכולים לגרום לנזק קבוע .
ה. שיש צורך במסורת וברציפות בכדי להכניס תחושה של מחויבות מוסרית.
ו. שהאוניברסליזם מעקר הרבה מהחוויה האנושית. לאהוב את כולם בהשוואה גמורה , שקול ללא לאהוב אף אחד בכלל. לכן אי אפשר לחיות חיים מלאים בלי מידה מסוימת של פרטיקולריזם.
אבל אחרי שכל זה נאמר , הרי מה שאמרתי מקודם נשאר תקף. ככל שזה נוגע לסוגיות מוסריות ספציפיות, לשמרנות , במידה והיא מתבססת בעיקר על העקרונות הנ"ל , אין תוכן מוגדר. כל הארגומנטים הנזכרים , אינם אלא טיעונים כלליים בעד הימנעות משינויים רדיקליים, בכל חברה בכל מצב. אין הם אומרים כשלעצמם שמה שחברה מאמינה בו ברגע מסוים הוא הנכון עבור אותה חברה באותו זמן.
השמרנות אומרת דברים שונים בתקופות שונות ובחברות שונות. בנקודה נתונה בהיסטוריה , בחברה נתונה , אפשר לזהות את אוסף הערכים שהשמרן יתמוך בו , אבל אוסף הערכים הזה אינו מזוהה עם מה שכל שמרן בכל עת יתמוך בו.
[חשוב לי להדגיש כאן , שלמרות מה שאמרת על היותם של זכויות אדם כפי שהן מקובלות בימינו מושרשות במסורת , הרי שישנם הבדלים עמוקים ביותר בין תקופות שונות בתוך המסורת הזאת. בעבר נהגו דברים שלפי הסטנדרטים של ימינו הם רוע מוחלט . אי אפשר לכן לטעון שהסדר הקיים הוא בדרך כלל טוב בבסיסו עם הבדלים מזעריים בין תקופה לתקופה . ]
אמת, אפשר לטעון שהתוכן הספציפי של השמרנות היא, ההנחיה הכללית שעליה אנחנו מדברים כעת, שלשמור על המרקם העדין של החברה הוא דבר חשוב שיש לוותר למענו ולהתפשר למענו אפילו על הצדק והמוסר . אינני מכחיש את חשיבות הערך הזה כשלעצמו . אבל זה לא מספיק .
מה שלא מספיק בזה הוא שאין בכל זה כשלעצמו , צידוק לאוסף הערכים המקובל ולמצב הקיים . זה אומר, למעשה, שהשמרן תומך בקיום סדר שאינו בהכרח צודק בעיניו , מכוח זה שחשוב לו לשמור על הסדר . הוא יכול בעצם להסכים עם הרדיקל שהסדר שהוא מציע הוא יותר צודק (זכור, לצורך הטיעון אני מניח עכשיו בשלילה שהשמרן יכול להאמין בקיומה של צדק שאינו תלוי במוסכמות המקריות המקובלות בחברה שבה הוא חי) , אבל הוא דורש ממנו לוותר על הצדק הזה, למען ערך נעלה יותר שהיא קיום הסדר החברתי . לא בגלל שהסדר כשלעצמו הוא ביטוי לצדק , אלא ששינוי רדיקלי יביא לדעתו למצב גרוע יותר.
למה הדבר דומה? לאתאיסט שסבור שהדת היא דבק מלכד ולכן גם אם הוא עצמו חושב שמדובר בשטויות , הוא בעד חינוך לדת והוא מוכן להעמיד פני מאמין גדול לצורך זה . אני מכיר אכן גישה כזאת , אבל האם אתה חושב שאתאיסט כזה יכול לשמש ככומר או כמשגיח רוחני? אדם כזה יכול אולי לגזור על עצמו שתיקה ולהחליט שאין לו שום עניין בשיתוף תובנותיו האתאיסטיות עם אנשים אחרים , אבל לפעול באופן אקטיבי לגרום לאנשים להאמין במשהו שהוא עצמו אינו מאמין , זה ציני מדי .
אבל זו בדיוק הבעיה של שמרן שתומך בקיום הסדר הנוכחי, אך ורק מתוך שיקול כללי של טובת החברה . הוא יכול להימנע פסיבית מפגיעה בסדר הקיים , אבל לתמיכה אקטיבית בערכים מקובלים, צריך אמונה תמימה בצדקתם של אותם ערכים גופם .
אבל נראה שהשמרנות באמת מבוססת בדרך כלל על יותר מזה . לא רק שהשמרן מאמין שחשוב לא לערער יותר מדי את הסדר הקיים , הוא מאמין שהסדר הקיים הוא אכן סדר צודק בבסיסו , גם אם יש מקום לתיקונים ושיפורים.
אם ניקח את סוגיית זכויות בעלי חיים שהתחלנו בו, נראה שההתנגדות למתן זכויות לבעלי חיים , מבוססת יותר מאשר על דבקות כללית במסורת. היא מבוססת על תחושה ברורה שלבני אדם יש ערך נעלה משאר לבעלי חיים. גם לו יצויר שיווצר שינוי הדרגתי ומדוד במעמדם של בעלי חיים ורק בעוד שלוש מאות או ארבע מאות שנה , מעמדם יתחיל להתקרב לזו של בני אדם , אני מאמין שאתה תחשוב שחברה כזאת מושתתת על עיקרון מעוות. הנושא אינו רק טובת החברה הכללית , אלא יש כאן התייחסות עניינית לגוף הבעיה.
וזה מחזיר אותנו לנושא הרלטיביזם. על סמך מה מאמין השמרן שהסדר הקיים הוא הצודק בבסיסו ? האם יכול אדם בעל מודעות סבירה להיסטוריה לחשוב שהמסורת והרגשות שלו הם בסיס מספיק להכרעה בענייני טוב ורע , לא רק בגלל שיקול כללי של טובת החברה , אלא גם לגופו של עניין , כאשר בו בזמן הוא מודע למסורות והרגשות הכנים שהיו קיימים בכל תקופה וקיימים בכל חברה ושתמכו באמונות שונות בתכלית וסותרות לחלוטין לגבי אותם דברים עצמם? איך יכול אדם לבסס את הדעה שלו על כך שמותר להרוג בעלי חיים ואסור להרוג בני אדם על מסורת ורגשות , בשעה שהוא יודע שבעבר היו מסורות ורגשות שמבחינתם היה בסדר להרוג גם בני אדם שלא משתייכים לקבוצה שלך?
בנקודה הזו אני רוצה להבהיר את מה שכתבתי אתמול , אודות זה שאם יש נכונות אינסופית להקשבה אפשר להגיע להכרעה וכו' , שנראה לי שלא הובן נכון. התכוונתי לחלק בין התחום השכלי , הרציונלי , שבו יש מקום לומר שכל חילוקי דעות הם מדומים ונובעים מטעויות ואי הבנות ושלכן יש לצפות שם לאמת יחידה שיכולה להתגלות בעיקרון אחרי שמעמתים זו עם זו את הדעות השונות , לבין התחום הא-רציונלי ,תחום הרגש ותחושת הנאמנות, שבו רגשות שונות עומדות זו לצד זו ואין לחלק ביניהן אלא אולי על פי עוצמתן ומידת הכנות שבהם.
במידה והפילוסוף טוען שנושאי מוסר הם עניין לספקולציה פילוסופית , הרי יש לו בסיס לאמונה בקיומם של ערכים מוחלטים , גם אם יכיר במגבלות שכלו ובכך שאין לו מונופול על האמת. אבל במידה וערכים מבוססים על תחושות ובמידה שטיעונים עקרוניים נדחים מפני הרגש , לא נראה שיש כאן בסיס שמבדיל בין דעה לדעה .אני יכול להבין מי שיטען שאין לו אלא את מה שהוא עצמו מרגיש . אבל הוא לא יכול לעצום את עיניו לקיומם של רגשות שונות .
אולי השמרנות היא סוג של אמונה מיסטית שלכל דור יש את העניינים הספציפיים שעליו לתקן ? שהסדר החברתי מכוון על ידי ההשגחה העליונה כך, שבכל דור הוא ישקף את מה שנכון באמת לאותו זמן? שהמוסר והצדק באמת משתנים מדור לדור?
