Tweet
Progressive morality tends to be guided by clear general principles, which usually include the principle of maximizing freedom and wellbeing for intelligent beings. How progressives tend to approach the question of whether a killing is justified is usually by application of that principle. Conservatives, on the other hand, seem to have a much more ad hoc morality, which does not usually seem reducible to clear principles like progressive morality, but rather seems to be an ad hoc and subjective mixture from many sources.
Let us consider different types of killings, and to what extent progressives and conservatives generally tend to view them as justified:
On the whole, it can be seen that conservatives tend to think the taking of life is justified more often and in more circumstances than progressives (so the "pro life" label for conservative views on abortion certainly doesn't generalize to the rest of their morality). The only cases both sides agree on is in defense of one's own life, and even then there is a substantial difference with conservatives generally having far greater readiness to kill (e.g. conservatives support "stand your ground" laws justifying the killing of a person in a public place if the person is threatening, and tend to be more supportive of laws enabling people to kill burglars in their own home; whereas progressives would tend to say that killing in self defense is only justified as an absolute last resort if there is a clear and imminent threat to a life).
The only cases where progressives tend to justify killing more than conservatives are abortion and euthanasia, because in both cases they apply the general principle of maximizing freedom and wellbeing for intelligent beings. Since the fetus is not yet an intelligent being then abortion is okay; and the freedom to end one's life if one's wellbeing is severely compromised due to illness follows straightforwardly from the general principle.
The extremely divergent views in the above table tend to lead both sides to consider the other absolutely horrible and immoral people. It certainly horrifies me on a constant basis the cavalier way conservatives in their forum approach the topic of killing people, and I've repeatedly been utterly disgusted by conservative posters here who justify everything from police shooting unarmed people in their custody through to large wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people, and find their views repulsive and immoral and evil. I'm told they have similar views of me. Naturally, of course, it is possible for a person to be somewhere between the extremes and to be a 'centrist' between the two views or lean somewhat towards one side without completely embracing the positions listed above.
I invite conservatives here to explain to me their so-called morality... why are some types of killing justified and others aren't in your view? Do you have any general principles? Or do you just get your justifications for killing people from the society around you? Is there any one coherent overall principle that explains your views on all these issues, or is it a mismash of many different ideas with your view on each issue coming from a different idea or different source?
Let us consider different types of killings, and to what extent progressives and conservatives generally tend to view them as justified:
| Type of killing | Typical progressive view | Typical conservative view |
| In war | Generally unjustified | Generally justified |
| Death penalty | Generally unjustified | Generally justified |
| Police killing of a criminal | Generally unjustified | Generally justified |
| An intelligent animal | Generally unjustified | Generally justified |
| Abortion | Generally justified | Generally unjustified |
| Euthanasia | Generally justified | Generally unjustified |
| As a last resort in defense of a life | Generally justified | Generally justified |
The only cases where progressives tend to justify killing more than conservatives are abortion and euthanasia, because in both cases they apply the general principle of maximizing freedom and wellbeing for intelligent beings. Since the fetus is not yet an intelligent being then abortion is okay; and the freedom to end one's life if one's wellbeing is severely compromised due to illness follows straightforwardly from the general principle.
The extremely divergent views in the above table tend to lead both sides to consider the other absolutely horrible and immoral people. It certainly horrifies me on a constant basis the cavalier way conservatives in their forum approach the topic of killing people, and I've repeatedly been utterly disgusted by conservative posters here who justify everything from police shooting unarmed people in their custody through to large wars that kill hundreds of thousands of people, and find their views repulsive and immoral and evil. I'm told they have similar views of me. Naturally, of course, it is possible for a person to be somewhere between the extremes and to be a 'centrist' between the two views or lean somewhat towards one side without completely embracing the positions listed above.
I invite conservatives here to explain to me their so-called morality... why are some types of killing justified and others aren't in your view? Do you have any general principles? Or do you just get your justifications for killing people from the society around you? Is there any one coherent overall principle that explains your views on all these issues, or is it a mismash of many different ideas with your view on each issue coming from a different idea or different source?
One transliteration is as good as any other.
Comment