To what extent do conservatives agree on the concept of human nature?

Within the ideology of conservatism, there is mainly disagreement in terms of human nature. This essay will analyse the strands of the New Right, One Nation and Traditional conservatives, and conclude that the disagreement of how human imperfection manifests outweighs their agreements.

Both traditional and one-nation conservatives argue that humans are intellectually, morally, and psychologically flawed and thus require tradition to ensure stability. On one hand, traditional conservatives believe that the intellect and reasoning of humans is limited. Humans do not possess the mental facilities to make sense of our complex modern world and thus, are drawn to the safe and the familiar. Because of this, key thinker Edmund Burke argued that instead of relying on ideological systems humans need to draw on tradition, history, and practical experience to understand their place in the world. All of us might strive to be better human beings but temptation tends to get the better of us; this again leads conservatives to recommend the guiding tradition of religion. Similarly, One-nation conservatives are suspicious of abstract ideas and systems of thought that claim to understand what is ‘simply incomprehensible. They prefer to ground the ideas in tradition, experience, and history, adopting a cautious approach to the world. Such a view places a premium on social order rather than liberty. Although Oakeshott was not as pessimistic as other thinkers, he suggested that our human nature leads us to ‘prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried’.

However, whilst conservatives agree that humans are imperfect, they disagree on the extent. Traditional and one nation conservatives see humans as incapable and fallible, whilst the new Right see humans as selfish and self-interested but with an increased level of optimism. On one hand, the neo-liberal strand of the new right adopts atomistic individualism, maintaining that human beings can be self-reliant and rational in their decision-making. They take a more positive view emphasising the possibilities of individuals with initiative and liberty, particularly in the economic sphere. Human’s negative nature can be overridden by unlocking our full potential given the right economic circumstances. Ayn Rand argues that we ought to be guided by rational self-interest and pursuit of self-fulfilment ‘because men are not equal in ability, and one can’t treat them as if they were’. By contrast, the other two strands of conservatism, as argued above, have an overarching pessimistic view of human nature. People are innately flawed and incapable of reaching a state of perfection. Traditional and one-nation conservatives also assert human nature is unchangeable; it will not improve over time or in certain conditions. Humans are tainted by the ‘original sin’.

Another key disagreement over human nature is within the New Right itself strand. On one hand, Neoliberals, especially Nozick, strongly believe in the concept of atomistic individualism as they believe that everybody should be able to make their own decisions in their own best interests. Unlike neoconservatives, they have a problem with the guiding hand of the state and believe it has a damaging effect on human affairs. Instead, to reach the full potential of their human nature, faith is placed in the individual and the market. As such neoliberalism has attempted to establish the dominance of libertarian ideas over paternalistic ones within the conservative ideology. On the other hand, neoconservatives believe that human beings need to be kept in check by strong law and order policies from the state. Their concern over public morality is based on a desire to reassert the moral foundations of politics, thus neoconservatives are anti-permissive and want to restore a clear set of morals. The freedom to choose one’s own lifestyle could lead to the choice of ‘evil’ views.

In conclusion, there is more disagreement than agreement over human nature in conservatism. This is due to traditional and one nation’s agreeing on the concept of human imperfection to a large degree, whilst the New Right reject this and see ‘ethical egoism’ as essential for humans. On the other hand, one nation and traditional conservatives are sceptical of a human’s rationalism, seeing our intellectual powers to be limited and therefore we cannot achieve autonomy.

Nora