Conservative "principles" or "arbitrary interpretations"?

Before I dove into Monday's reading, "Ten Conservative Principles" by Russell Kirk, I assumed from the title of the reading that Kirk would outline definitive and inarguable aspects of conservativism, offering an explanation of the ideology.

I was wrong in this assumption. I found Kirk's principles to be not really principles at all, but more his personal interpretations of what a conservative ideology is, based on his experience. Of course, the only truths a person can know are all based on experience. But I was surprised to find I disagree with Kirk in many instances — not so much as to the definition of conservativism, but the beliefs it assumes about people and the world. Maybe because he's obviously conservative, and I definitely consider myself liberal? I don't know.

First, the first principle: the belief in an enduring moral order. I understand the order part, but the belief that moral truths are permanent? No. Different people hold different morals, and therefore different truths, based on their situation and experience. Not even all conservatives can possibly believe in one set of moral truths. That's like saying there is only one correct opinion about a certain topic.

Next, the second: that conservatives adhere to custom, convention, and continuity. Okay, got it. But this part didn't sit right with me: "the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly paradise." Yeah, change could be for the worse — but it could also be for the better. In making a change, a society makes that conscious choice to take that risk.

And finally (but these are not the only three parts of the reading I had issues with) the sixth principle, which states: "To seek for utopia is to end in disaster... we are not made for perfect things. All that we can reasonably expect is a tolerably ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk."

I actually completely and wholeheartedly agree with this statement. No one is perfect, therefore no society can ever be perfect, and yes, suffering is a natural part of life that will never go away completely. However, within the context of Kirk's writing, the statement assumes that because of this reality, there is no use in attempting to try to improve situations or cease the existence of some evils and suffering through change — just because we know they will always exist. I understand and agree with the "pick your battles idea," that changes should not be made just for the sake of change. However, choosing not to end suffering or rid society of obvious evils is like giving up.

Maybe conservatives are just lazy?