Conservatism necessarily entails some degree of acceptance of the status quo, with conservatives often resisting even change that is inherently positive or liberating if it is perceived to be costly or difficult. To even be conservative in the first place, a person must cling to some sort of tradition no matter how erroneous or asinine it is. In fact, it would not be inaccurate to label many conservatives "status quo warriors," since they are intent on preserving historical or existing social norms that hurt America as a whole.
An attachment to tradition often means a lack of concern about any logical or moral problems associated with that tradition. No matter how much they protest to the contrary, conservatives are not chiefly concerned with morality, as their tendency to back relatively slow social changes towards moral improvement (such as towards extinguishing sexism or racism) evidences, as does their tendency to oppose various innocent, amoral things [1]. Instead, they are concerned with protecting traditions they selectively approve of.
When they do advocate for social change, it is often merely a change within existing social structures that occurs over a prolonged period of time that is being endorsed. In many cases, at the very least, nothing particularly vehement, immediate, or drastic is called for when it comes to transforming a culture for the better. Slow change that does not rock the boat is the goal, if a departure from traditional norms is pursued at all.
Crucial moral changes to the fabric of a society, whether they would occur on a legal or lifestyle level, should not be delayed for the sake of personal or collective reluctance--convenience and custom possess no ethical significance. It does not matter if pursuing justice will hurt the people who profit from its absence; it does not matter if the culture derives its very stability from flawed traditions.
If a society is systematically plagued by a specific injustice, its citizens have an obligation to fight that injustice, and to fight it ferociously if necessary. There is no legitimate defense of delayed reactions to correcting that which is contrary to reason and morality. Abrupt, violent change for the better is superior to a gradual shift from stupidity and immorality to justice (given that the change is not implemented in a way that itself contradicts morality). Those who only wish to allow major societal injustices to slowly fade away cannot be legitimately called true moralists.
[1]. Examples include the recreational use of comparatively mild drugs like marijuana and the enjoyment of nonsinful sexual activities (like the use of erotic media that does not promote immoral sexual behaviors).
No comments:
Post a Comment