First at all, if something is formulated provocatively, I excuse myself in forward for this. Normally, I would take more time to write such a text, especially in English. Therefore, I also excuse myself if it’s written in the style of a child.
To begin, before arguing against Conservatism, I first have to make a definition of Conservatism. Perhaps, not every Conservative will identify with this definition, but I hope most will.
- A social capitalistic system satisfying the basic needs of the people of a nation
- A privilege to the people of the nation (by privilege of the nation’s culture)
- Essential laws, as the law against murder, thieve, et cetera, say culturally neutral laws
- Privilege of the nation’s culture:
A more exact definition of “Privilege of the nation’s culture”: A culture has two aspects:
- Culturally partisan laws, who aren’t justified by an objective standard, but only because the are part of the culture and cultural norms, the lifestyle of the people by the state.
- Creative expression, cultural aesthetics, for example, the state subventions museums that couldn’t hold themselves financially
The aspect I’ll argue against is the privilege of the nation’s culture.
If museum or artists need subventions, they can’t hold themselves financially. Why would this be? Because the majority of the people aren’t interested to it, so they don’t pay money for it. Why? It isn’t part of their culture. If it would be part of their culture, it would be because they appreciate this kind of music or whatever. But no, they don’t. They invest in other kinds of music or films et cetera. The culture regulates itself. There’s no need to privilege certain art over other art because the deciding minority prefers it and therefore takes the money from the taxpayers who don’t have any interest in this arts, and if they do, they pay voluntarily. What’s the culture of a nation? The culture of the majority of the people of this nation. And it is these people who decide which art genre survives and which doesn’t. There’s nothing wrong with this. You can say, Bach is part of Germany’s culture. Well, this depends of the definition of the culture of an artificial entity. However, Bach isn’t the culture of the majority of German people. In this case, there’s perhaps no money needed to support Bach’s cultural heritage, but you understand what I mean. German people don’t have the duty to support a culture they don’t have. They support the culture they support voluntarily, as in this case, it is their culture.
The other were culturally partisan laws. As I’ve already said, if laws are culturally partisan, they aren’t justified by an objective standard. So, they aren’t justified. With example perhaps is a little bit stupid, but if I piss in my sink, it isn’t culturally appropriate. However, I don’t see why it should be forbidden to me to do it because a majority isn’t able to deal with it. If this is the case, everybody of them individually has a problem with it, a personal problem, and I don’t see how it is justified to use a violence monopole to end personal problems.
If you want to say that in another culture rape could be legitimate, perhaps this is true, however it would be forbidden by objective standards, same as murder. And in the most cases, these laws would be realized by sociality.
Murdering gays perhaps was sometime legitimate culturally, however it wasn’t objectively justified. I just reject the idea that culture justifies directly.
If you want to say that there would be no order without culture, then it would be justified by the fact that a state has to be stable, and there would still be culture. The state simply wouldn’t privilege one culture another.
I’m looking forward to hear arguments.
Thank you for reading !