163. fred:
I’m not in any way religious at all, but I don’t think I was really putting down religion. I have great respect for Judeo-Christian values and their contribution to Western society. I just don’t believe that it’s necessary or advisable to derive a moral system from faith – not in the context of promoting an ideology or running a country.
The reason is this. Spiritualism is not provable. If morals are expressed in terms of spiritualism, it is not possible to appeal to reason should any dispute arise. If you say that *your* faith dictates moral X, then there is nothing to stop someone else saying that *their* faith dictates moral Y. Where does the argument go from there? There is no way to resolve such a dispute since neither version of spirituality is provable and neither is based on anything objective or concrete.
In contrast, a moral system derived rationally from objective reality has the advantage that one can always appeal to reason. While I would not describe myself as a card-carrying Objectivist I will say that Ayn Rand set down such a rational moral system. If you accept that life is the standard of value and that every individual has the inalienable right to dispose of their own life as they please so long as they don’t initiate the use of force against another, then you have a rational moral system as far as I’m concerned. The right to life is the basis of all other rights, including the right to property. Rand’s chapter on the nature of individual rights in “The Virtue of Selfishness” (which also appears as an appendix in “Capitalism”) is perhaps the best explanation of rights I have ever read in my life. She then goes on to demolish the idea of “collective rights,” which of course is an idea grounded in mysticism.
Secular Marxism resulted in so many deaths not because of the absence of religion but because collectivism is not a rational ideology and fails to isolate the primary importance of the individual. There is no such thing as a “common purpose” since every individual has their own hopes, dreams, aspirations and priorities. Any attempt to force individuals to sacrifice their life to the collective is slavery and will always result in oppression and mass slaughter.
Evil – that which is detrimental to life – may well have an organic basis but that is why we need a state to enforce the rule of law and protect individuals from the physical coercion of others.
I agree with Rand when she expresses her contempt for today’s conservatives (or even the conservatives of her time) – who should be the ones to defend capitalism and the rights of the individual but instead who say nothing as the primary values of America are stomped upon by the collectivist left; indeed who have partaken in that atrocity themselves on many occasions. I can think of very few conservatives who defend capitalism properly these days – they may make a few gurgling noises in defense of free markets on occasion, but rather than defend economic freedom from a rational and moral stance, they behave as apologists for a system they concede is “flawed” but which they snivel, “it’s the best we have so far.”
How many conservatives tell the truth? Which is that we have never had true economic freedom, that the “capitalism” which they refer to is in fact a mixed market which is poked and prodded by corrupt bureaucrats, who abuse their power and distribute economic favors to businessmen prepared to hand over a few dollars and perks to any politicians who will give them an advantage at the expense of their competitors?
If anything the conservatives are worse than the socialists. At least the socialists are consistent in their attacks on capitalism. As Rand said, when two groups accept what are basically the same ideas, the most consistent side wins. Which is why McCain deserved to lose against Obama. He paid lip service to the free market and to the idea that people should be able to keep as much of their wealth as possible – but all the while, he talked about the need to curtail “Wall St greed” and proposed the bailing out of people’s mortgages and chose a running mate who stung big oil in her own state in order to redistribute legitimate profits to those who didn’t earn them. Obama wasn’t exactly consistent with the ideas of socialism and he too pays lip service to the idea of economic freedom, but far less so. He just came right out and said it: “we’re going to spread the wealth”….and he won. Neither side was consistent in their promotion of socialistic views, but Obama was the most consistent.
Back to religion – I will defend anyone’s right to practice their own faith where and when they like, just so long as they don’t force it upon others. So, I think a kid has the right to say a prayer when accepting an award in front of the school for instance, and I despise the leftist mindset which sees this as a “crime.” I just don’t think, given the diversity of thought and belief in today’s society, that you can seriously expect to base a successful political movement or ideology on religion. This is why the religious right annoys me so much. In their belief that a state can and should have religious basis, they alienate the millions of us who either don’t have such beliefs or who don’t share the same religion. For this reason, unless the Republican Party does something about the tendency of its religious segment force their faith down the throats of those who want nothing to do with it, I think as a party it’s finished.
A rational conservatism based on a combination of libertarianism with a strong emphasis on the rule of law and national defense is the only viable future for conservatism in my opinion. As long as it both refrains from forcing religion down the throats of the secular AND protects the inalienable right of the religious to practice their faith freely, it offers something for everyone.
