How can the paramount good for liberals and conservatives be reconciled?
May 25, 2013 at 9:53 pm
(This post was last modified: May 25, 2013 at 9:56 pm by Whateverist.)
I was inspired by Apo's recent post on Chad's "5 Levels of Faith" thread, particularly, this part:
Apophenia mentions Republicans but I'd like to focus not on the party but on conservatism (and probably libertarianism too). And I'm not interested in a strawman version but the core beliefs which draw intelligent people to its principles, the kind who go on to accomplish what many would call good things in the world. I know such conservatives exist and I would really like to understand what their core beliefs are as they themselves understand them.
I fall more naturally into the liberal/progressive camp. Social justice, genuine equality of opportunity limited only by ones own gifts, ambition and willingness to take risks - rather than the resources of ones parents - is the paramount social good as I see it.
From my perspective, the essence of conservatism/libertarianism has always seemed to revolve around a respect for tradition, "faith of our fathers", patriotism .. an emphasis on institutions over individuals. From such a point of view, great economic stratification can seem deserved. But from my point of view accepting and promoting such disparity seems at least callous and self serving.
The excess to which my liberal/progressive perspective is susceptible is an emphasis on the even distribution of resources irrespective of effort and risk. This I agree would not be ideal.
This is not my area of expertise so I'd appreciate hearing what others think about this (from both sides) and also welcome recommendations for books or articles people have found helpful to bridging the divide.
(May 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: As most here are likely to left of center, politically, most people will identify with this. Many times you will hear people maligning Republicans as liars and cheats, and suggesting that they are evil people because it's obvious (to the observer) that what they are doing is wrong; there's no way that someone could be stupid enough to do what that Republican is doing without knowing it's wrong. Are there likely Republicans who do fit this profile? I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are, but we tend to generalize about the whole class, not just those few exemplars. I think it would be unreasonable to believe that Republicans are somehow different than liberals (in meaningfully significant ways) such that Republicanism requires a special explanation for why the typical Republican continues to believe and act as they do (in spite of what "any normal person" would know is true). In the end, this appears to be a way of normalizing your own in-group, and explaining away the existence of people that disagree with you as flawed and defective.
Apophenia mentions Republicans but I'd like to focus not on the party but on conservatism (and probably libertarianism too). And I'm not interested in a strawman version but the core beliefs which draw intelligent people to its principles, the kind who go on to accomplish what many would call good things in the world. I know such conservatives exist and I would really like to understand what their core beliefs are as they themselves understand them.
I fall more naturally into the liberal/progressive camp. Social justice, genuine equality of opportunity limited only by ones own gifts, ambition and willingness to take risks - rather than the resources of ones parents - is the paramount social good as I see it.
From my perspective, the essence of conservatism/libertarianism has always seemed to revolve around a respect for tradition, "faith of our fathers", patriotism .. an emphasis on institutions over individuals. From such a point of view, great economic stratification can seem deserved. But from my point of view accepting and promoting such disparity seems at least callous and self serving.
The excess to which my liberal/progressive perspective is susceptible is an emphasis on the even distribution of resources irrespective of effort and risk. This I agree would not be ideal.
This is not my area of expertise so I'd appreciate hearing what others think about this (from both sides) and also welcome recommendations for books or articles people have found helpful to bridging the divide.
