Moonbeam quote:
<< Conservatives think that truth lies out there in a repository they call God and liberals think that man must be the measure of all moral decissions, but that men of good conscious arrive at pretty much harmonious conclusions. >>
Does this mean that liberals think that men of good conscience will arrive at harmonious conclusions but that conservatives don't think that?
And where, in questions of ethics and morality, do you draw the clear line between religious belief and a purely action-based morality?
For example, multiple studies have shown that absentee fathers are perhaps the greatest precursor of socially harmful behavior. Furthermore, multiple studies have shown that, as a general principle, children that are raised in an environment where one parent is able to stay home and invest their time primarily with the child for a good ten years or so benefit tremendously from that type of social structure.
In other words, children from such an environment overwhelmmingly grow up to be generally law-abiding, drug-free, tax-paying, fiscally responsible people.
So, if the government encourages this behavior by giving income tax credits to stay at home, married, single income families, is that credit there because of religious convictions about "God's primary design for domestic life" or is there because of a purely pragmatic and political belief that this is what is best for the culture at large?
Of course, there is a blatant contradiction in calling it a tax credit because the stay at home parent hasn't paid any income taxes, so how can you refund what has never been paid? But the current tax system makes it virtually impossible for a middle income parent (lets say, 40,000 a year) to carry out a social program that is proven to be effective and requires little if any direct government involvement unless the government creates some type of financial relief that makes it possible. So is the principle legitimate on purely pragmatic grounds?
A conservative tends to say that the more government leaves the traditional family concept alone (except to encourage it by making it more fiscally plausible), the better off society is for everybody. A liberal tends to say that encouraging the traditional family in any way discriminates against the non-traditional family.
The same could be said about sexual issues. From a purely pragmatic viewpoint, practiced lifelong monogamy is great for the society at large, especially for women. Practiced monogamy would virtually eliminate STD's, minimize the perceived need for abortions, and promote what seems to be the most stable environment for children. Yet, because such concepts have a high parallel with religious beliefs, the government has tended to promote no-fault divorce and the acceptance of promiscuity as inevitable. Apart from any religious conviction, given the demonstrated evidence of the fact that widespread divorce and promiscuity are hard on the culture in which they occur, what kind of behavior should the government encourage? Not based on religious belief, but on purely social data? I am not saying the government should punish lack of monogamy, but what should it encourage? If it is going to fund sex ed, what should it promote as the most socially responsible behavior? Is promoting lifelong monogamy on purely empirical grounds discrimination against those who choose another lifestyle?
Well, is it discrimination to invest in what is known to be effective on purely pragmatic grounds? What is the government's role in domestic/social issues anyway?
These are hard issues. Is it the government's responsibility to solve these issues? If it is, then how does the government "solve" them? A conservative tends to say the best way the government can solve these issues is by fiscally encouraging demonstrably beneficial social constructs without punishing in any direct way those who choose not to implement them.
A liberal tends to seek what they perceive to be an ethical, government-based program to solve the issue.
As one can easily see, the differences between a liberal and a conservative are hard to bridge, even from people of sincere conscience, who are to far and few between in both camps. The next best thing to a sincere friend is a sincere opponent, an anti-friend who has integrity but sees everything from a different perspective.
Facebook
Twitter