I intended to help someone, but it turns out the thing I did kills people. The only moral option is … Doubling down and killing more people.
It all boils down to the different moral foundations people use. For progressives, care, equality and “freedom to” are the main building blocks for deciding whether something is just and moral.
- Does it harm people? - Does it result in inequality? - Does it prevent people from engaging in society?
As long as the proposed idea (behaviour, policy) clears those two hurdles, it’s good to go for progressives.This type of thinking is super compatible with consequentialism.
For conservatives, there are more foundations to consider - authority, loyalty, fairness, purity and “liberty from”.
- Does it violate established social hierarchy? (in this approach, hierarchy is good and beneficial). - Does it damage in-group bonds? (again, strong in-group loyalties are considered to be good). - Does it fail to reward contributors and punish wrong-doers? (this is a big one - fairness is about just desserts and consequences for actions, not equality). - Does it breach the sanctity of the body? (this is a complex one, rooted in cultural notions of disgust and body as a temple). - Does it force people to engage in actions they disagree with? (this is the freedom from taxation, PC, and so on).
Libertarians pretty much care only about Liberty from things, usually the government.
This complex set of values means that the same idea or policy will get different moral evaluations. Let’s take a few examples:
Legalising weed: all fine in terms of the progressive foundations. But it breaches purity (the body is a temple) and to an extent interacts with conservative version of fairness by removing a punishment on what they consider to be morally wrong behaviour.
Universal healthcare: again, all clear in progressive values. This policy will help. But in the conservative value set, the policy fails at fairness by ‘rewarding’ non-contributing behaviour (poverty and illness). Let’s not get into a debate over how this is even classified as behaviour rather than a condition. It also breaches freedom from for people who are mostly focused on being free from government, rather than private insurers. The interesting caveat is that purity should favour healthcare - if the body is sacred, we should as a society value accessible ways to keep it healthy and clean. However, because many health conditions have contributing behavioural factors, it can be considered unjust to help people out of the consequences of their actions - even at a net loss to society.
If anyone is interested, Jonathan Haidt writes a lot about the moral foundations, and while he’s often annoyingly centrist in how he presents the ideas, the research is pretty solid.
Here’s the thing. Liberal morals. The ones you listed are basically just the inalienable human rights listed in the Declaration of Independence.
You literally need food to live. And life is one of your fundamental rights in this country. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”? These are inalienable rights our country was founded on. Its the first thing there. You are ENTITLED to life in this country so therefor its NOT a stretch to say that our government should provide everything you need to continue living. Food, water, healthcare and shelter.
Fascists and Nazis today aren’t any different. They want to pretend that the right to live needs to be earned. That your right to justice is only important if your identity is “normal” and “scientifically valid”. They want to say you aren’t allowed to pursue happiness if your happiness makes them uncomfortable.
I shouldn’t have to say this but I do. This of course assumes your happiness doesn’t hinge on another person’s unhappiness. If yoir pursuit of happiness infringes on another person’s persuit of happiness it is not valid. Your rights end where another person’s begin.
I think the biggest issue in this country is that we focus on and prioritize that last phrase, while willfully ignoring that the our pursuits cannot infringe on others. Otherwise the right isn’t applicable to EVERY citizen. Which is kind of important when we’re talking about human rights.
Its not life (as long as you work hard), liberty (as long as you abide by societal norms) and the pursuit of happiness (regardless of how that pursuit effects the lives of others).
Its life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For EVERYONE. Every single living breathing human on American soil. Period.
And its astounding because this is what our country was FOUNDED on. Its what we were fighting for and yet this idea is considered “new” and “progressive” when its literally just a better understanding of how to attain what the founding fathers clearly WANTED.
What’s with the obsession with calling food or recipes “better than sex”…I tried your pintrest risotto Sharon and frankly I’m wondering if your needs are being met
poor spooky decided to nap on my lap which did not deter me from eating a sleeve of saltine crackers and absolutely covering her in crumbs, luckily she seems incredibly indifferent to her current salty state
The stories of women in my family who were forced into lives they didn’t want and didn’t utilize their passions breaks my heart. My grandma wanted to be a journalist and write about the injustices she saw inflicted on disabled ppl while she was volunteering at a state run institution as a teen. Her father decided that she was “too fat and stupid” for college and forced her to get married at 17 or else he’d make her homeless. As a kid she told me that she wished people believed that she had meaningful opinions on events around her. One of my great grandmothers wanted to be an artist but was pressured into marrying a man who beat her. She stayed up late each night when her children were in bed writing poetry and pasting it over elaborate collages she mad herself. We still have stacks of these notebooks she created but was never allowed to do anything with. My mother wanted to be an operatic singer and was considered a musical prodigy in her town because she taught herself three seperate instruments by 13. When she was 18 she met my then 30 year old father who emotionally manipulated her into giving up her dreams to start a family with him. As a kid I would hear her up at night playing the violin or doing vocal exercises until she became too depressed to practice anymore. Like idk y’all there’s a quiet type of violence in the way women’s talents are devalued and brushed aside in favor of bullying them into “traditional” roles that ultimately don’t fulfill what they wanted for their lives. We’ve lost so much art, music, writing, science, and happiness to misogyny.
