The perfectibility of man
Bill Whittle wrote a short but awesome post for Big Hollywood about Thomas Sowell. Sowell believes that the true, real difference between conservatives and liberals – the foundation for all their views on specific policy issues – is the difference in the way they think of mankind. Liberals believe in the perfectibility of man, conservatives do not.
Sowell calls this a “conflict of visions.”
Sowell argues that when it comes to the culture wars, each of us will be drawn to a specific trench not because of policies or parties but rather because of the vision we may hold of human beings and how they are constructed. He names these the Constrained and Unconstrained visions of humanity; Mankind either as constrained by his biology to moral weakness and self-interest, or, on the other hand, a creature unconstrained by his biology and therefore perfectible.
The kind of society you would construct for each model of the human heart is vastly different; opposite, even. And so I decided to test his theory against history and look for examples. The results are here…
Be sure to watch the video at BH.
As far as I am concerned, Sowell and Whittle are to a very large degree correct. Most of it boils down to a vision of mankind.
But I wonder whether it’s all as black and white as it appears – some conservatives may believe, for instance, that man can improve himself significantly but that there are (biological and spiritual) limits to this personal evolution.
The same goes for society of course.
So yes, the main difference is related to one’s (lack of) faith in the perfectibility of man – but there are different levels of skepticism. This too causes differences of opinion, even among conservatives (and liberals) themselves.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
