Atheists should be conservatives!

[MatthewG]

I know, this sounds counterintuitive. It sounds awkward for religious conservatives who can't imagine what conservative political philosophy would possibly have in common with atheism and from secular progressives who cannot imagine having anything in common with the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Palin. So why do I believe that atheists should be conservatives? It's quite easy. The constrained view of human nature. I was reading about this in Thomas Sowell's delightful book A Conflict of Visions. According to the constrained view of human nature, human nature is inherently self-serving. Well, if atheists believe that it's unlikely that any divine beings exist, then they have to believe that everything that they do is done out of sheer selfishness. There is no divine lawgiver to tell them what to do, no divine command, and no rewards or punishments beyond the grave. Whatever they do or whatever any human beings do is done out of selfishness. Atheists ought to agree with Sowell. I have been told by atheists that they don't need a god to tell them that being honest, hardworking, kind, respectful, and treating others with dignity are virtues. Well, conservatives are big on virtue ethics. Dinesh D'Souza argues that conservativism is just classical liberalism combined with (Aristotlean?) virtue ethics, in his book Letters to a Young Conservative. I agree. I am a classical liberal and I strongly adhere to virtue ethics.

This is the reason why atheists should be conservatives. They want individual liberty, especially from the church. Well, why not apply that to state governments? If they really valued their own sense of self-interest, then their self-interest, maximizing liberty as it would, is to behave virtuously. I am not an atheist myself although I often find myself gravitating towards atheism at times. However, I think that atheists would do well to study carefully the arguments of Sowell, especially his philosophical books A Conflict of Visions, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, and The Vision of the Anointed. I don't always agree with Sowell but he's often quite persuasive.

[Sci Fi Fan]

According to the constrained view of human nature, human nature is inherently self-serving.

That isn't true: altruism.  In a larger evolutionary sense it is "self serving" in that it was adapted to ensure survival and gene propagation, but that isn't what we think or consider our emotional desire to help others - we're just altruistic, to varying degrees, by nature.

There is no divine lawgiver to tell them what to do, no divine command, and no rewards or punishments beyond the grave. Whatever they do or whatever any human beings do is done out of selfishness. Atheists ought to agree with Sowell. I have been told by atheists that they don't need a god to tell them that being honest, hardworking, kind, respectful, and treating others with dignity are virtues. Well, conservatives are big on virtue ethics. Dinesh D'Souza argues that conservativism is just classical liberalism combined with (Aristotlean?) virtue ethics, in his book Letters to a Young Conservative. I agree. I am a classical liberal and I strongly adhere to virtue ethics.

AFAIK Atheists like myself tend to favor utilitarianism.

This is the reason why atheists should be conservatives. They want individual liberty, especially from the church. Well, why not apply that to state governments? If they really valued their own sense of self-interest, then their self-interest, maximizing liberty as it would, is to behave virtuously. I am not an atheist myself although I often find myself gravitating towards atheism at times. However, I think that atheists would do well to study carefully the arguments of Sowell, especially his philosophical books A Conflict of Visions, The Quest for Cosmic Justice, and The Vision of the Anointed. I don't always agree with Sowell but he's often quite persuasive.

Actually the opposite is true.  If the universe is not divinely guided, then there's no reason to believe that life is fair.  Laizze faire economics is based largely on the just world hypothesis, that the free market will lead to a meritocratic, fair, justice society without any (ha!) intelligent design.  If we accept that this is not so, then arguments such as "we don't need welfare because people will give charity!" seem less credible.

Also, conservatism technically refers to preservation of the status quo - much of the status quo is justified on basis of the appeal to tradition fallacy, which hardly works when you don't think any of that tradition can be justified on the grounds on a divine being.