The moral roots of Liberals and Conservatives

Post Reply New Topic

Social Virtue (part of the fifth foundation mentioned above) seems to involve physical grace and beauty, as well as the ability to adapt to one's environment and endure unpleasant experiences without complaining.

My left-leaning sympathies seem to have been induced by a social environment that was incapable of, or unwilling to make its own adaptations for people who are socially awkward, physically clumsy, and who are slow to adapt to change or unpleasant experiences.

I assert that a contributing factor in the development of a Liberal is the treatment he or she receives from Conservatives as a child and adolescent.

Again, they made us this way, so why do they complain that we are this way?

Maybe it isn't the "changes" that are wanted, it's the way in which they are presented: "We demand XYZ", as opposed to "We would like XYZ, what would it take to achieve this, or alternatively just XY?". I don't seem to recall many liberal\progressive requests for changes, most of the time it is a "we want..." folllowed by a tantrum, much like a child demanding something, rather than asking politely.



In true science and engineering, left/right should not matter, as these are based on solid foundations and known information, where experiments are able to be repeated and facts are important (2+2=4).

Outside of these areas you enter into the "pseudo-science" and humanities, where, for the most part, conservatives with an interest in these will study them, and then move on to finding work in the real world where they can utilise what they have learned, while liberals seem to prefer the "Acadmic" world where "theories" are important (2+2=5).

It is intellectually dishonest to claim that conservatives do not have an interest in science because of the number of them in academia. A conservative person would be more likely to look to private enterprise, where they are supporting their community through privately funded work (funding is "voluntary") rather than rely on public funds such as in academia where funds are provided from taxes (funding is "coerced").

As for your "pandemic" claims: The liberal "follow the science" approach has been more of a case of expecting government to know what is best, expecting that they are following "science", even when this "science" can contradict itself in a short period. The conservative "reckless" approach has been more of a case of being aware of the risks (seeing them as less severe than the liberals do) and willing to accept these, whilst also working to ensure that those who are more likely to be affected should be given whatever protection is possible.

Looking at what is now known, there is a considerable portion of the community with minimal risk of severe problems from this disease (Particularly those under 50 who did not have certain other health issues). Protecting the most likely people to be adversly affected (elderly and those with pre-existing health issues), whilst allowing others to continue in a relatively "normal" lifestyle could potentially have resulted in much fewer deaths, along with building up "herd immunity" through the potential exposure among, and thereby allowing society to reopen earlier and safer than otherwise.

A great way to compare the "recklessness" of lack thereof of each side would be to look at the united states. Here, each state is responsible for health matters (Federal government has minimal\no control over this area), and so the higher death rate (as a percentage of population) should give an indication as to the recklessness of the left or right in their approach to this. Based on this (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1109011/coronavirus-covid19-death-rates-us-by-state/), of the top ten worst hit states (either including New York and New Jersey, or ignoring them and taking the following 10), 70% were what you referred to as the side with the "responsible" approach (left), and only 30% were from the "reckless" side when you look at the governors of these states, being they were ultimately responsible for their states approach.



The problem is where the emphasis is placed:
Does the "specific" problem you are looking at affect a small group, or could it affect everyone: It is the difference between "Police violence", or "Police violence towards XYZ". The former encompases both alternatives, and correcting it will help society. The latter only emcompases a small group, and correcting this does not guarantee that the overall issue will be stamped out, and ignoring the impact on ther areas of the community means that the same practice is more likely to return.



And here is a perfect example of the problem with liberals\progressives: They want a change, to the benefit of a tiny segment of the population, with an expectation that the majority should change their personal\societal belief system\structure to suit the minority, regardless of the impact it will have on those being asked to make the sacrifice for it to occur, and that it occur within their chosen timeframe...Ignore those who have a "traditional" view, don't offer to give up a small section of what is wanted in order to show "solidarity" with those expected to make the changes, just charge forward expect people to roll over and give up their traditions and beliefs because "we demand you do".

As a hypothetical, how would you feel if conservatives were to rise up, demand that society only recognise 2 genders, that you were required to identify as the gender you were born as, and that you could be punished for making claims to the contrary, and then force these in to law when you took too long to agree? That is a similar situation to that in which conservatives are treated by liberals in many cases: their beliefs\traditions are destroyed\discarded with no respect shown for them or the people holding them, merely to get what the liberals want instead of offering compromise. It is a "give us everything, we'll offer nothing in return" approach, which is destined to cause resentment and animosity.

It is interesting that (in general) liberals tend to be younger and more demanding of "instant gratification" with regards to what they want, whereas (again in general) conservatives tend to be older and prefer a more gradual level of change, being content to wait and see what effect a small change has before making additional changes, perhaps as a result of seeing the disasterous effects sudden changes can sometimes have?

This would depend on the group you focus on: To some the group may be family oriented, to others the group may be a local church, or organisation, whereas to others the group may be peers or school.

A person would have differing loyalty to each of these: If the focus on the "accepting" (positive) group (family or church for example), they would see this differently than if they were focussed on the "outcast" (negative) group.



This would also likely reflect the group which was selected. If you were focussed on the "accepting" group, then respect would be more likely than if you were focussed on the negative one.



Again, the approach you are looking at appears predicated on an association\focus on an unwelcoming\negative group, rather than having an association\preference for a welcoming\positive one.



I believe it comes down to what "group" we tend to focus on (and all 3 aspects could be seen as linked to this), and so our approach will derive from this. If someone had more "positive" groups than "negative" ones, or the overall outcome of interactions with these groups was "positive", you would be more likely to turn out as "conservative" and so "satisfied" with society, whilst if you had predominantly "negative" groups or outcomes from interaction with the groups, then a more "liberal" outcome would be likely, trying to "fix" the problems experienced in the past.

I gently ask you to refrain from portraiyng whole groups of people as "children throwing tantrums". This is a form of a sweeping attack.

When simple requests for change are perceived as childish tantrums, I have to wonder if some people fear change.

Last edited by Fnord on 18 Sep 2020, 10:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

Fear of the unknown is one of very basic, common experiences.
If you view change as plunging into the unknown, fearing it is absolutely natural.

Also, if having to actually make the changes is perceived as a loss of autonomy and/or privilege, then it is easy to see why some people might fear it.  When we fear, we hate.  What we hate, we attack.

There is a difference between a request and a demand...A request allows for the possibilty of refusal, whereas a demand does not.

Many "requests" for change are presented as "we want" rather than "we would like", with a refusal to agree to the former resulting in efforts to force it on people or demonise those who did not acquiesce, whereas a refusal to the later would more likely result in a mutual compromise being arranged whereby each party would receive some of what they wanted, while also giving up something in return.

When we are attacked, we retaliate...

Is that a threat, a warning, or just a miscellaneous comment?

And a war starts, casualties rise...

An observation...when a group is pushed around, or treated as "second class", then they are liable to retaliate.

Sometimes this can be violent (civil rights movement), othertimes it is "peaceful" (Mr Trump's election).

And only the survivors -- not necessarily the victors -- write the history.

When you are accustomed to privilege, the demand for equality feels like a threat.

Tell me more about it. I'm living in a part of the world still traumatized by a war that happened 90 years ago.

Retaliation doesn't have to be violent. Think of the 2016 U.S.A. presidential election result where the "deplorable" (second-class) people retaliated against what they saw as constant attacks on them and their communities\lifestyle by those who "knew what was best for them"...