Dr. Dan Phillips has an interesting essay on the "shock" many folks, new to paleoconservative philosophy, experience over our bashing of the "pro-life movement". (link via Publius)
...the primary objection of the paleos to the pro-life movement (not the cause of life but the political movement, mind you) is philosophical, not practical. While paleos are often distinguished by their opposition to foreign intervention, immigration, and free trade, what really sets them apart from other conservatives is much deeper than just policy. They differ on significant underlying philosophical presumptions. One helpful way of looking at this difference is to ask where paleoconservatives draw the "its all been down hill since then" or alternatively the "those were the good ol' days" line in the historical sand. Paleos generally reject the Enlightenment in whole or in part. They reject Lockean "contract theory" and the concept of "natural rights" out right. Dr. Donald Livingston, Professor of Philosophy at Emory University, calls natural rights a "philosophical superstition." According to Dr. Livingston:
"It was to secure these rights that the modern state was invented in the first place, and it is impossible, especially for Americans, not to be seduced by the doctrine. But it is nonetheless a philosophical superstition.
The reason is this. Whatever they might be, natural rights are universal and apply to all men. Further, they are known by reason, independent of any inherited moral tradition... It follows, therefore, that the doctrine of natural rights must be in a condition of permanent hostility to all inherited moral traditions. Any such tradition, no matter how noble the goods of excellence cultivated in it, can always be seen as violating someone's natural rights under some interpretation or another."
So according to the paleoconservative critique, there is no end to the havoc that can be wrought on traditional society by advocates attempting to secure their natural rights, in this case a woman's "right" to an abortion.
Thank you for linking to that excellent essay.
ReplyDeleteIt goes far to explain how someone like Orestes Brownson could have been both anti-slavery and anti-abolitionist.