I read recently that a founder of Conservative (the real stuff) thought actually voted for a Socialist. I think it was back in the 20’s. The reason given was the socialist was a bit like Nader in, unlike most politicians, he was honest and principled. I am sure someone can expand.

Burkean? The quoted passage seems like pure liberalism( in the American sense) to me.
Will Durant’s works were available for ages in editions designed for the mass market.
He was the James Michener of American historians. He was an influential channel of
the received ideas of the Liberal establishment to the masses of middle-class readers
who snapped this up.

I always thought of him as a political conservative.  In part, because his work was devoid of the clap-trap of leftist academia, and in part because the attitudes relected by your quote seemed to pervade his work, at least in the parts I encountered. 

I am therefore surprised to see his expression of conservative sentiments noted with surprise here.  Though the biographical detail you provide largely explains that surprise, his progressive positions and (which I had not known about) do not seem necessarily incompatible with conservative principles.  The socialism is a trickier matter, but I suppose in his day one looking for a populist party would more than likely end up there.

Apologies for the sloppy editing.  I still can’t seem to get a setup whereby I can view my commetns box before hitting “send”.

Of course what he is saying is that morality is in fact not relative, because “social order” is the absolute moral good.

Haven’t had time to read his 11 volumes but doesn’t he conclude in his summarizing volume that equality and liberty are sworn enemies?

It might be interesting to do a comparative study of Durant and Toynbee; Revilo P. Oliver’s “History and the Historians” series, which appeared in the John Birch Society magazine “American Opinion” in the early sixties (and is collected in his book “America’s Decline"), contains a very interesting assessment of the latter (unblemished by his later overstated prejudices).

I read the Durants’ 11-volume “Story of Civilization” about ten years back. I loved it. Note Will Durant’s respectful treatment of the Middle Ages, which he titles not “The Dark Ages,” but “The Age of Faith.” Reading the books, I sensed that his politics evolved over the 47 years he (and his wife) wrote the 11 volumes. It’s worth noting that towards the end of his life Will Durant identified widespread homosexuality as a marker of civilizational decline, which makes the charge that he was “an active left-winger his entire life” problemmatic. I don’t know any left-wingers who utter such politically incorrect thoughts.

That professed leftists of years gone by would appear to possess more conservative principles than the so called “Conservative” of today should come as absolutely NO surprise. Current “conservatives” are a kind of faux conservative with increasingly statist and authoritarian objectives. They seek to re-write history and , as in their democracy at gunpoint program, they claim to create their own reality.

The current statist “conservative” plays social conservatives for fools and makes their living....frequently rich livings.....by combining their statist connections with the modern Corporation, an institution that is now a kind of extra-national force protected by the State...including the socialization of both their debt and bad management.

If you are looking for what would have been considered a “conservative” in the historical sense, they’re either all dead or considered to be cranks and crazies. As an example of how abjectly ridiculous it all is, consider for a moment that it is not altogether a stretch to assert that Ted the Unibomber likely held more “conservative” ideology than our dear Vice President, the Sunbeam for the Unitary Executive Bearing Brass Knuckles.

What a coincidence!  I just started reading Volume 1 myself.  Durant is certainly a secularist, and I can live with that; all I want is to learn a little history.  What strikes me in his describing various civilizations is that if I were a woman, I couldn’t think of a better place to live than in a Christian society.  The feminazis don’t know how good they have it.

“morality is the sum of the prejudices of a community”

Now this is hesperophobic liberalism at its worst, and I would have to disagree.  As Durant so wisely noted, cultural taboos and imperatives are the accumulated wisdom of a “hundred centuries and a billion minds”.

So, if moral/cultural taboos and imperatives are in fact prejudices, they are good ones.  They keep us safe.  For example, cigarette smoking only kills one third of smokers.  So telling your child not to smoke is the same kind of prejudice; you don’t know that they’re going to die from it.  There is also the example of the tiger.  Some tigers are very tame, but only the demented would put their young child in a cage with a tiger.  Is this prejudice against tigers as well?

We can take the argument a step further with David Hume.  Hume would argue that just because we got burned once sticking our hand in the fire, it may not happen next time.  And it’s a form of prejudice to claim otherwise.  Is it really prejudice against fires not to stick our hands in one?

No, morality is accumulated wisdom.  Prejudice is a red herring liberals use to try to destroy our culture and ways.

@Stuart

“Burkean? The quoted passage seems like pure liberalism( in the American sense) to me.”

How so?

Moral and cultural relativism are indeed basic postulates of postmodernism.  But that doesn’t in and of itself make Durant’s passage untrue.

Unless you’re prepared to argue for moral and cultural universalism, it only follows that these things would be relative.  Where the postmodernists go off the tracks is where they claim that all cultures and morals are equally valid everywhere.  And by default, American values are no more valuable than, say, Hottentot values.  I would disagree.  American values may be relative, but they are of great value to Americans. The same goes for Hottentots, and all other groups.

Every sentence of the “Declaration of INTERdependence” is a propaganda effort for Communism.  Nothing he said or extolled is of any value other than destroying the traditional character of the American people.  The late seeds of Americas decline can truly be found in that 1945 document.

BANA

I read the entire History of Civilization series while convalescing from a motorcycle mishap suffered right after coming home from my Viet Nam combat tour.  The one part that I will never forget was his long discussion of the difference between piracy and taxation.  After reading it through several times, I realized that there really is not much of a difference in most cases.  For that insight, I will always think kindly of the Durants.

Just an aside on the man and his wife.

Near the end of their lives they both returned to the Catholic Church. Enough Said!

Also, both died within a few days of each other.

I would like to see the source for Will Durant’s alleged return to Catholicism.
As far as I am aware, “Ariel” Durant had never been a Catholic in the first place.
How are the mighty fallen! 50-60 years ago this thread woiuld have stirred up a storm.
It seems Will Durant has faded into obscurity, like the “historian” HG Wells.
His “Outline of History” also brought progressive thought to the masses.

As for the thoughts expressed in the paragraph cited above, I don’t know of any
conservative school of thought that proposes that morals are absolutely relative
but do have utilitarian significance to each society.

I read about Will Durant’s return to the Church in his obituary in National Review, at the time of his death. I know nothing about Ariel.