A lot of people see conservatism as a negative heartless viewpoint of society. If by heartless they mean that we do not give what is not earned, then yes we are. If by heartless they mean accountability vice political correctness, then yes we are. All sarcasm aside, there is always multiple perspectives to every viewpoint. I view the overarching goal of conservatism as positive. See the founding belief is that each person will do good in order that goodness my be returned to them. Makes you question selflessness? There is nothing that is selfless. All things support a greater purpose. Christians are selfless for the reward of heaven, Leaders are selfless so they may demand the same. The true philanthropist is selfless for the title. Everyone has their own greater purpose for every action. Its physics, and less face it biology is applied chemistry, and chemistry is applied physics.
So is it bad that people do good for good to be returned? No!!! It is a noble pursuit. If everyone did good to have good returned than no one would hate, theoretically (not practically). I earn money to afford survivability of my progeny. I better myself further to afford comfort. My employer gets a more efficient worker for my selfish desire to not stress about money, and in turn he gives me more. When I reach the point where I am content, then my employer need not worry about increasing my pay, and can now focus that planned pay for the next guy looking for comfort from finances. It's good, it's fair and more importantly, it is a merit driven system. Class warfare? Doesn't exist. Sure money can still be inherited, but those who do nothing to better will lose there money to those who wish to better themselves.
In the most basic type of society, a trader society, one man would grow a crop and trade his crop with a guy who had sheep. The guy with sheep could get milk, wool and meat. The guy who had the crop had food for his family and could feed livestock. They both see an immediate need for each other. Both will be at the very least civil with each other just to ensure their own survival at their present comfort level. By getting feed for his sheep, the rancher could now continue to feed sheep the higher quality food so he could keep milk going through winter. The rancher wants the milk and wool for the winter as well, so they sustain each other.
Somewhere in the middle we lost this idea and believed that someone had to tell the farmer to sell to the rancher, and what amount must be sold. Now the rancher and farmer didn't eve have to talk anymore and became more distant. They could now quarrel amongst each other over land being used for grazing vice farming. Not realizing they were killing their own customers.
Conservatism dictates that this middle person dictating the "musts" has to be done away with. Mutual assured prosperity/destruction are the most primal causes for society. They work, and they work well. Conservatism dictates that we get along so WE can get along. That is very positive.
Today it is cities vs Rural. Both desire each other for their comforts, but are now at odds. Cities lack the raw materials to produce and rural like the amenities that cities provide. Cities know that there is a disadvantage and dictate through legislation. This is not the true path. You make life hard on farms than they will move to cities for the comfort, they move to cities than Cities lose food. Plain and simple.
You can't dictate against human nature. You can tweak the understanding of it so society can respond in kind, but man is selfish. And that's not a bad thing at all.