Human Nature
→ Conservatives generally have a more pessimistic view of human nature, arguing that we are naturally
selfish and unequal, and require an authority strong enough to establish order.
→ However, the different branches have very different views on the limits of our natural rational
abilities, and whether our selfishness is an issue to address, or a virtue to be promoted.
Traditional Conservatives One-nation conservatives New right conservatives
● Original sin/ Human imperfection: ● Agree that humans are naturally → Has a considerably more optimistic view
→ We are flawed psychologically, morally flawed and unequal but draw some of human ability.
and intellectually and so we need different conclusions:
discipline from above. ● Atomistic individualism/ Self-
→ Hobbes: believed that only an ● Selfishness and the free market: ownership - people have absolute
absolute monarch could lift humans → Human nature means the free rights and the ability to rationally
from the barbaric state of nature. market might not always work in the pursue their own self interest.
national interest for stability. Can fear
● Tradition : that if individuals can act so rationally, → While liberterian thinkers like Rand and
→ Burke + Oakeshott , rationalists then giving them total freedom then Nozick argued that humans were selfish
overlook our natural limitations - giving them free reign over the free and naturally unequal, they thought that
the politics of faith, and utopian market might be problematic. our human ability to reason, our unique
ideologies are rigid and dangerous. → Disraeli + Macmillan feared that in ability to rationally plan our lives imbues
→ Burke: argues that traditions the free market, the selfish short term each person with a special moral
provide comfort and stability, and thinking of individuals could prompt significance with total ownership over their
the traditional institutions, national them to take actions that were not in bodies, talents, skills, and the products that
myths, manners and conventions, all their long term interest or the national result from their use with inviolable rights
help to restrain our more emotional interest, instability threatening the and the right to be treated as an end rather
destructive impulses. organic society. than a means.
→ Oakeshott: argues that
rationalists were wrong to argue ● Ethical egoism - it is morally right to
that humans were capable of ● Paternalism - act in our own self-interest - we must
identifying universal objectively → Given that we are naturally unequal rationally determine what we need to
, correct principles. He felt that a and flawed, paternalistic intervention do to thrive.
policy of scepticism was far more in is wise.
tune with our human nature, that we → Argued that those who would best → Rand’s ethical egoism comes from her
should pragmatically pursue overcome their natural limitations view of human nature. She said that it's
intimations that arise from the tried should make decisions and intervene because humans have to rationally plan and
and tested practical knowledge + on behalf of those less capable. take action to live and thrive, that it’s moral
costumes handed down by previous to act in our own self interest.
generations. ● Rationalism:
→ Humans are capable of a degree of → She said that to promote altruism, to
● The conservative disposition: central planning - take pragmatic steps argue that we live to help others is to argue
→ At times we all naturally prefer that reform and build upon the past. that we have no right to act to support our
the tried to the untried in our lives. → While all conservatives believe own human life. Rand’s objectivist
→ Oakeshott- we’d be much happier humans have the capacity to create a philosophy held that the individuals were
if we applied this disposition to central authority to establish law and perfectly capable of identifying the rational
politics, treating politics as a order. One nation conservatives were values that would best serve their own long
conversation in which we appreciate also willing to argue that our rational term interests.
and build upon, or we’ve inherited abilities allow for a degree of central
rather than angrily arguing over planning, intervening to prompt ● Framework for utopia - no single
flawed rationalist plans for economic and social reforms believed utopia vision will suit all people,
perfection. to be in the wider national interest e.g. humans are all unique individuals.
David Cameron
→ Nozick: similarly argues that it's due to
our uniqueness and our inherent right to
pursue our own definition of happiness that
the perfect society is one that enables
individuals to pursue their own definition of
utopia. Trying to impose a single scheme on
others simply ignores our human nature
→ Conservatives generally have a more pessimistic view of human nature, arguing that we are naturally
selfish and unequal, and require an authority strong enough to establish order.
→ However, the different branches have very different views on the limits of our natural rational
abilities, and whether our selfishness is an issue to address, or a virtue to be promoted.
Traditional Conservatives One-nation conservatives New right conservatives
● Original sin/ Human imperfection: ● Agree that humans are naturally → Has a considerably more optimistic view
→ We are flawed psychologically, morally flawed and unequal but draw some of human ability.
and intellectually and so we need different conclusions:
discipline from above. ● Atomistic individualism/ Self-
→ Hobbes: believed that only an ● Selfishness and the free market: ownership - people have absolute
absolute monarch could lift humans → Human nature means the free rights and the ability to rationally
from the barbaric state of nature. market might not always work in the pursue their own self interest.
national interest for stability. Can fear
● Tradition : that if individuals can act so rationally, → While liberterian thinkers like Rand and
→ Burke + Oakeshott , rationalists then giving them total freedom then Nozick argued that humans were selfish
overlook our natural limitations - giving them free reign over the free and naturally unequal, they thought that
the politics of faith, and utopian market might be problematic. our human ability to reason, our unique
ideologies are rigid and dangerous. → Disraeli + Macmillan feared that in ability to rationally plan our lives imbues
→ Burke: argues that traditions the free market, the selfish short term each person with a special moral
provide comfort and stability, and thinking of individuals could prompt significance with total ownership over their
the traditional institutions, national them to take actions that were not in bodies, talents, skills, and the products that
myths, manners and conventions, all their long term interest or the national result from their use with inviolable rights
help to restrain our more emotional interest, instability threatening the and the right to be treated as an end rather
destructive impulses. organic society. than a means.
→ Oakeshott: argues that
rationalists were wrong to argue ● Ethical egoism - it is morally right to
that humans were capable of ● Paternalism - act in our own self-interest - we must
identifying universal objectively → Given that we are naturally unequal rationally determine what we need to
, correct principles. He felt that a and flawed, paternalistic intervention do to thrive.
policy of scepticism was far more in is wise.
tune with our human nature, that we → Argued that those who would best → Rand’s ethical egoism comes from her
should pragmatically pursue overcome their natural limitations view of human nature. She said that it's
intimations that arise from the tried should make decisions and intervene because humans have to rationally plan and
and tested practical knowledge + on behalf of those less capable. take action to live and thrive, that it’s moral
costumes handed down by previous to act in our own self interest.
generations. ● Rationalism:
→ Humans are capable of a degree of → She said that to promote altruism, to
● The conservative disposition: central planning - take pragmatic steps argue that we live to help others is to argue
→ At times we all naturally prefer that reform and build upon the past. that we have no right to act to support our
the tried to the untried in our lives. → While all conservatives believe own human life. Rand’s objectivist
→ Oakeshott- we’d be much happier humans have the capacity to create a philosophy held that the individuals were
if we applied this disposition to central authority to establish law and perfectly capable of identifying the rational
politics, treating politics as a order. One nation conservatives were values that would best serve their own long
conversation in which we appreciate also willing to argue that our rational term interests.
and build upon, or we’ve inherited abilities allow for a degree of central
rather than angrily arguing over planning, intervening to prompt ● Framework for utopia - no single
flawed rationalist plans for economic and social reforms believed utopia vision will suit all people,
perfection. to be in the wider national interest e.g. humans are all unique individuals.
David Cameron
→ Nozick: similarly argues that it's due to
our uniqueness and our inherent right to
pursue our own definition of happiness that
the perfect society is one that enables
individuals to pursue their own definition of
utopia. Trying to impose a single scheme on
others simply ignores our human nature
