2009SSRN Electronic JournalOpen access

Political Conservatism and Darwinian Science: Does Conservatism Have a Future?

Stephen Dilley

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

In an era of rapid change and shifting political alliances, a number of scholars have attempted to keep political conservatism viable and current by arguing that Darwinian science supports political conservatism. In particular, Prof. Larry Arnhart levels a sustained argument that Darwinism provides a biological foundation for conservative notions of human nature, traditional morality, family values, private property, limited government, and the like. A foundation for his view is the claim that the laws of nature and material causes are sufficient to produce emergent human minds capable of the kind of free will consistent with moral responsibility. This essay argues that Arnhart's attempt to unite Darwinism and conservatism fails, even when augmented by developments in the philosophy of mind. As such, political conservatism does not seem to be reconciliable with Darwinian theory - a result that has implications for the intellectual viability of conservatism in changing political landscape of the 21st century.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In an era of rapid change and shifting political alliances, a number of scholars have attempted to keep political conservatism viable and current by arguing that Darwinian science supports political conservatism. In particular, Prof. Larry Arnhart levels a sustained argument that Darwinism provides a biological foundation for conservative notions of human nature, traditional morality, family values, private property, limited government, and the like. A foundation for his view is the claim that the laws of nature and material causes are sufficient to produce emergent human minds capable of the kind of free will consistent with moral responsibility. This essay argues that Arnhart's attempt to unite Darwinism and conservatism fails, even when augmented by developments in the philosophy of mind. As such, political conservatism does not seem to be reconciliable with Darwinian theory - a result that has implications for the intellectual viability of conservatism in changing political landscape of the 21st century.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In an era of rapid change and shifting political alliances, a number of scholars have attempted to keep political conservatism viable and current by arguing that Darwinian science supports political conservatism. In particular, Prof. Larry Arnhart levels a sustained argument that Darwinism provides a biological foundation for conservative notions of human nature, traditional morality, family values, private property, limited government, and the like. A foundation for his view is the claim that the laws of nature and material causes are sufficient to produce emergent human minds capable of the kind of free will consistent with moral responsibility. This essay argues that Arnhart's attempt to unite Darwinism and conservatism fails, even when augmented by developments in the philosophy of mind. As such, political conservatism does not seem to be reconciliable with Darwinian theory - a result that has implications for the intellectual viability of conservatism in changing political landscape of the 21st century.

Key concepts: Conservatism, Politics, Darwinism, Morality, Argument (complex analysis), Political philosophy, Environmental ethics, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Political Conservatism and Darwinian Science: Does Conservatism Have a Future? — Research Paper | ScholarLens