Is there a coherent right-wing philosophical framework?

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

I'm trying to identify whether there exists a coherent right-wing philosophical framework in the strict sense. By that I mean a system with clearly stated principles that can be applied consistently to real-world cases involving conflict, not something that's just a set of preferences, traditions, or policy positions.
I'm aware that "right wing" can mean different things depending on who you ask, so feel free to clarify what you mean by it if needed, but I'm mainly interested in whether it can be expressed as a structured, internally consistent framework that yields determinate outcomes in such cases.

If you think such a framework exists, I'd appreciate it if you could outline it in terms of
- its core principles
- how those core principles resolve conflicts between individuals or groups
- whether those resolutions apply universally or, if context-dependent, what determines that dependence.
I'm particularly interested in frameworks that remain internally consistent when applied not just to typical scenarios, but also edge cases.

There's a good chance I'm currently simply not aware of the strongest versions of these ideas, so I'm interested in seeing what people consider the most coherent candidates.

 

[Merton J. Dingle]

Only familiar with it in passing, but this is probably a good place to start:

https://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/burke/revfrance.pdf

 

[analrapist]

I'm trying to identify whether there exists a coherent right-wing philosophical framework in the strict sense. By that I mean a system with clearly stated principles that can be applied consistently to real-world cases involving conflict, not something that's just a set of preferences, traditions, or policy positions.

The problem is that you're pigeonholing before you even get a result. "can be applied consistently to real-world cases involving conflict" is not "a coherent... philosophical framework in the strict sense".

For example, a fresh new philosophical framework in the strict sense with broad applicability (and even an author with a lolcow thread here) is Vox Day's Veriphysics: https://veriphysics.substack.com/

You're not asking for "a philosophical framework", you're asking for a casuistry, for which I'll give you Wikipedia's definition: "a process of reasoning for resolving an ethical dilemma (moral problem) either by extracting or by extending abstract rules from a particular case of conscience, and reapplying those abstract rules to other, different ethical dilemmas"

 

[Absolutego]

No. A core reason the political right constantly is in a shambles is that they aren't particularly ideologically-motivated, but instead results-oriented. They don't have one consistent utopian vision they are trying to pursue, but a grab-bag of principles with a good track record. If you get hip-deep into the theory it descends into a mess of neo-reactionaries, nationalists, and lolbertarians that are just as divorced from reality and day-to-day unworkable as the utopian socialism that drives the most ideological lefties.

BUUUUT because they don't have the one unifying theory (spare me distinction between a techno-green socialist future/revolutionary communism/third-worldist paradise, they all imagine a broadly equitable future where people don't need to work anymore, they can play all day with what interests them while the government addresses core needs), they're better at reigning in the excesses of their side, because there are disparate factions that can call out when one subgroup is implementing unworkable ideas from their side without that cascading out into questioning the larger group's principles.

 

[analrapist]

they don't have one consistent utopian vision they are trying to pursue, but a grab-bag of principles with a good track record

One of the dynamics underpinning this is that the Western right-wing is traditionally Christian, and Christianity is unusual among religions in that it does not provide political casuistry. Politics and casuistry are expected to be downstream from the ethical and moral teachings of the religion. Pharisaic Judaism, which became post-temple Judaism, was exactly the opposite: the religion itself was constructed around the Talmudic casuistry. Islam derives its casuistry from the example of the Talmud.

But this is also one of the reasons Roman Catholicism and its schism Eastern Orthodoxy are increasingly popular, because they provide some degree of casuistry, versus the biblical injunction to "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Romans 14:5b)

 

[No-Eyed Square Guy]

Total midwit death is a clear principle.

 

[Not an Hero]

Suck ZOG cock. Simple as.

 

[Absolutego]

Total midwit death is a clear principle.

The world needs midwits, what it doesn't need is credentialism midwits can acquire by fogging a mirror and then putting them in key decision making positions.
The death of the managerial revolution cannot come soon enough.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

The problem is that you're pigeonholing before you even get a result. "can be applied consistently to real-world cases involving conflict" is not "a coherent... philosophical framework in the strict sense". [...] You're not asking for "a philosophical framework", you're asking for a casuistry

Nah. I wasn't asking whether something can be called "philosophy" in a loose or academic sense. I was asking whether there is a coherent right-wing framework that yields determinate outcomes when there is a collision of claims.
Also, asking how a framework resolves conflict is not the same thing as asking for casuistry. Casuistry is case-by-case reasoning. What I asked for is core principles, how they resolve conflicts, and whether those resolutions apply universally or contextually. That is a request for a structure of the framework, and not for improvised patchwork.

No. A core reason the political right constantly is in a shambles is that they aren't particularly ideologically-motivated, but instead results-oriented. They don't have one consistent utopian vision they are trying to pursue, but a grab-bag of principles with a good track record. If you get hip-deep into the theory it descends into a mess of neo-reactionaries, nationalists, and lolbertarians that are just as divorced from reality and day-to-day unworkable as the utopian socialism that drives the most ideological lefties.

BUUUUT because they don't have the one unifying theory (spare me distinction between a techno-green socialist future/revolutionary communism/third-worldist paradise, they all imagine a broadly equitable future where people don't need to work anymore, they can play all day with what interests them while the government addresses core needs), they're better at reigning in the excesses of their side, because there are disparate factions that can call out when one subgroup is implementing unworkable ideas from their side without that cascading out into questioning the larger group's principles.

Saying there's no unified framework doesn't address the question. If two people or groups have incompatible claims, what determines the outcome? If the answer is "it depends on the faction in question" or "whoever prevails in practice", then there is no consistent rule.
And if there is some standard by which "unworkable ideas" or "excesses" are identified and rejected, then that standard is doing the work of a framework and should be made explicit.

One of the dynamics underpinning this is that the Western right-wing is traditionally Christian, and Christianity is unusual among religions in that it does not provide political casuistry. Politics and casuistry are expected to be downstream from the ethical and moral teachings of the religion. Pharisaic Judaism, which became post-temple Judaism, was exactly the opposite: the religion itself was constructed around the Talmudic casuistry. Islam derives its casuistry from the example of the Talmud.

But this is also one of the reasons Roman Catholicism and its schism Eastern Orthodoxy are increasingly popular, because they provide some degree of casuistry, versus the biblical injunction to "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Romans 14:5b)

More casuistry does not by itself solve the problem, it just moves the question one step over. What are the governing principles, and what rule settles conflicts when authorities or interpretations diverge?

this is probably a good place to start:

https://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/burke/revfrance.pdf

For example, a fresh new philosophical framework in the strict sense with broad applicability (and even an author with a lolcow thread here) is Vox Day's Veriphysics: https://veriphysics.substack.com/

I'm specifically looking for the structure. Principles -> conflict resolution -> rule of application.
If such a framework exists, it should be possible to state it directly in those terms.

 

[Absolutego]

Saying there's no unified framework doesn't address the question. If two people or groups have incompatible claims, what determines the outcome? If the answer is "it depends on the faction in question" or "whoever prevails in practice", then there is no consistent rule.
And if there is some standard by which "unworkable ideas" or "excesses" are identified and rejected, then that standard is doing the work of a framework and should be made explicit.

You're describing political and philosophical arguments between people like competing software routines, that's not how it works. Applied ethics/philosophy are inherently not consistent because people aren't consistent. Any standard is an ideal, not the reality on the ground.
That's why when you ask a question like "if two people or groups have incompatible claims, what determines the outcome" the only answer is "it depends on the faction in question" or "whoever prevails in practice". There are dozens of influencing factors that go into how an individual decides which claim wins out, that escalates to hundreds, if not thousands, of complicating factors spread across group consensus. You can't boil that down into a workable set of core principles that people will naturally fall in line with.
Lefties have been trying for centuries, and it's why the immediate response when things go even slightly awry is an authoritarian crackdown to force people into compliance with the expected outcome.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You're describing political and philosophical arguments between people like competing software routines, that's not how it works. Applied ethics/philosophy are inherently not consistent because people aren't consistent. Any standard is an ideal, not the reality on the ground.

You're conflating two different things.
You're talking about how people behave in practice, I'm asking where there is a philosophical framework that determines the outcome when claims conflict.
Those are different questions. A rule can be consistent even if people fail to follow it consistently.
If there is no consistent rule at all, then outcomes reduce to whoever prevails in practice. But then terms like "excess", "unworkable", or "better" no longer have a stable meaning, since there is no standard they refer to.
And if there is some standard, regardless of how imperfectly it is applied, then that is exactly what needs to be made explicit.

 

[analrapist]

Let's unpack this.

What are the governing principles

This is a question of philosophy. As casuistry is distinct from this, let's call philosophy-before-casuistry meta-ethics. An Aristotlean would call this "first philosophy". Philosophers don't even agree on what to call this.

what rule settles conflicts

This is a question of casuistry.

when authorities or interpretations diverge?

This is a presupposition, and an incoherent one that pulls you into nonsense-land. In order for a casuistry to function, it presupposes a shared meta-ethics. "When authorities or interpretations diverge" implies that there is no shared meta-ethics. So your question is self-defeating.

The practical resolution for inconsistent meta-ethics is the contemporary "democratic rule of law", where authority is vested in the state to mediate these inconsistent meta-ethics; the consistent point of meta-ethics then translates to "obedience to the state", and the casuistry translates to "the body of law which governs the state".

And yeah, this state of things sucks, but step 1 is getting people to agree on meta-ethics, and then we can work into the casuistry. The Left isn't much better, but practically "Marxism" provides both without a Christian religious ground; it substitutes an explicit Christian grounding for an implicit Talmudic grounding.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

You're splitting this into "meta-ethics" and "casuistry" and then saying

In order for a casuistry to function, it presupposes a shared meta-ethics.

and from that,

your question is self-defeating.

But that doesn't follow.
If your position is that a framework only "functions" once there is already a shared meta-ethics, then that framework does not resolve conflicts under disagreement. That is precisely the condition I'm asking about.
Asking what happens when authorities or interpretations diverge is not "nonsense-land" by any means. If the framework has no rule for that case, then it is incomplete for the purpose at issue.

The fallback you yourself suggested makes it clearer

The practical resolution [...] is the contemporary "democratic rule of law", where authority is vested in the state

At that point, the state is doing the conflict-resolution work, and the supposed higher framework is not determining outcomes at all.
Which leaves the same question: what are the core principles, how do they resolve conflicts between individuals or groups, and do those resolutions apply universally or contextually?
If the answer is that they don't resolve such cases unless everyone already shares the same meta-ethics, then that is a statement that the framework does not cover the cases in question. A framework that only functions after disagreement disappears is presupposing the absence of conflict.

 

[analrapist]

If the answer is that they don't resolve such cases unless everyone already shares the same meta-ethics, then that is a statement that the framework does not cover the cases in question. A framework that only functions after disagreement disappears is presupposing the absence of conflict.

Then yes, there is no work that I am aware of that resolves such cases, because it is a case that cannot be addressed philosophically, as it is nonsensical to expect a philosophical system to resolve a conflict brought about by non-adherence to a philosophical system.

 

[Nickel Silver]

Love Thy Body by ex-agnostic Nancy Pearcey advocates a Christian holistic body-mind dualism of human beings as the only real thing that maintains the dignity of the human body and criticizes the facts/values and body/mind splits of secular ideology, which she presents as arbitrary and dehumanizing.

Upon this foundation of Christian holistic dualism, she argues for pro-life, against premarital sex, against euthanasia, against homosexuality, and that trans women will never be women. It's far more intelligent reading material than any leftist's screeching on reddit.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

it is nonsensical to expect a philosophical system to resolve a conflict brought about by non-adherence to a philosophical system.

That is not just incorrect, it's contradicted by the most basic examples.
Take the principle "do not steal".
One person takes another person's property without consent. They clearly do not share the same principles. One of them is not adhering.
The framework still gives a determinate answer: the property should be returned to the original owner.
That is a philosophical system resolving a conflict brought about by non-adherence.
So, no, it is not "nonsensical". It is the most elementary case such systems address.
You can disagree with that principle, but the claim that philosophy cannot address such cases is plainly false.

---

Love Thy Body by ex-agnostic Nancy Pearcey advocates a Christian holistic body-mind dualism of human beings as the only real thing that maintains the dignity of the human body and criticizes the facts/values and body/mind splits of secular ideology, which she presents as arbitrary and dehumanizing.

Upon this foundation of Christian holistic dualism, she argues for pro-life, against premarital sex, against euthanasia, against homosexuality, and that trans women will never be women. It's far more intelligent reading material than any leftist's screeching on reddit.

That's a reference and a list of conclusions, not a framework in the terms I outlined.
If you think this provides a coherent system, then it should be possible to state it directly in the terms I set in the OP. I'm asking for the structure itself, any reading material can come afterwards.

 

[analrapist]

That is not just incorrect, it's contradicted by the most basic examples.
Take the principle "do not steal".
One person takes another person's property without consent. They clearly do not share the same principles. One of them is not adhering.

The framework still gives a determinate answer: the property should be returned to the original owner.

You have not specified a framework, you have specified a "principle". Then, "the property should be returned to the original owner" does not follow from this principle. I suspect one of the problems you are having here is that you have difficulty with logical causation and philosophical implication. Who should return the property? Why should the property be returned? What proof is there that the property was taken without consent? Philosophy answers questions. You seem to just want to handwave and have people guess what nonsense is in your brain.

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

Your original claim was

it is nonsensical to expect a philosophical system to resolve a conflict brought about by non-adherence to a philosophical system.

and I gave you a counterexample that contradicts that. For that purpose, it only needs to show that a principle yields a determinate outcome in such a case. It does not need to specify enforcement or evidentiary procedures.
And it does yield a determinate outcome: if taking property without consent is disallowed, then the person who took it is not entitled to keep it.
A full framework would require further specification, but that does not change the point that has been established. The claim that such cases cannot be addressed philosophically is already false.
Now, if you're moving the goalposts by going from "this cannot be addressed philosophically at all" to "your example does not specify every step of implementation", those are different claims.

 

[Harvey Danger]

There doesn't have to be. The "political right" as originally defined is just protecting or conserving the status quo, which doesn't really need a framework. In the face of the "left" pushing or accomplishing radical change, they can become reactionary, which also doesn't need a framework. You might say these are negative positions instead of positive positions, but they're perfectly valid, and necessary in every society if it is to survive.

There's also plenty of right-wing frameworks, usually structured around something specific. It can be anything from nationalism, naturalism, ruralism, Luddism, fascism, racial supremacy, reconstructionism, monarchism, etc. You can probably guess the principles around all of those. It's an ongoing arguing how relevant any of them are now, or how serious the adherents.

If you're asking about right/center-right frameworks, instead of fringe wings, then I'm only familiar with the American context. The pre-Trump "mainstream conservatism" is actually a fusionist ideology called the New Right back in the 1960s. That has its own framework of principles centered around liberty (economic and political) combined with traditionalism (social and institutional).

(This should not be confused with the recent "New Right" label that some put on Trump and the wave of right-wing leaders around the world who are friendly with him.)

 

[XL xQgg?QcQCaTYDMjqoDnYpG]

What you said jumps back and forth between two different claims.
First, that there does not need to be a framework at all because "protecting or conserving the status quo" and reacting against radical change are enough on their own. That claim just pushes back the question one step because "protect the status quo" is not a self-interpreting directive. Which status quo? Preserve what, against what, and by what principle? Under what conditions? Without that, "protect the status quo" is a mere posture, not a framework.
Second, that there are in fact plenty of right-wing frameworks, followed mostly by labels and then one more concrete candidate in the form of fusionism. Simply naming things is not the same thing as outlining their principles, that step is exactly what I asked for in the OP.
The only actual candidate you seem to state is

liberty (economic and political) combined with traditionalism (social and institutional)

which at least gestures toward a framework. But then it's the same question: what determines the outcome when those two come into conflict?
If "liberty" points one way and "traditionalism" points the other way, which governs, and what rule decides that?