Jeremy Stangroom

5. His idea that human beings need to cultivate the spiritual side of their nature in order to escape the vapidities of consumerist society is utterly unconvincing. Not going to to work, mate, that's even assuming we have a spiritual aspect (which we don't).

6. His attempt to defend prejudice is just a bad argument - not even coherent, as far as I can tell - and doesn't do him any favours. Jettison it, it my advice. It's unnecessary, and doesn't help the conservative cause.

7. He correctly argues that lefty intellectuals tend to obfuscate & retreat behind slogans and sophistry when asked difficult questions. But conservatives do the same: What about slavery? What about vicious religious intolerance? What about entrenched racism?

Does Roger Scruton support slavery, religious intolerance, or racism?

No. But he absolutely explicitly defends prejudice... (But the more interesting question is whether conservatism provides the tools with which to criticize these things; and if so, whether it can coherently do so).

as for prejudice, it is perhaps just a Hume-an preference for custom, practice, sentiment, and what has worked so far. Pragmatism by another name, against the utopian rationalism and the consequences of that we have witnessed.

But that's not a defense of prejudice as prejudice. That's basically a consequentialist defence. Scruton wants to secure prejudice against rationally constructed arguments even if they're consequentialist in nature.

Where does Scruton defend prejudice regardless of consequences?