Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the Trump era

[Smeadly]

Natural justice, in philosophical and legal terms, generally does not decree that individuals must practice benevolence unless they choose to, but rather emphasizes fair procedures and impartiality in decision-making processes. Its core principles involve giving individuals a fair opportunity to be heard and ensuring that no one judges their own case—these are procedural guarantees rather than moral mandates for voluntary benevolence.

From a moral perspective, natural justice is about maintaining fairness and avoiding arbitrary actions, but it does not inherently prescribe that individuals are required to act benevolently outside the legal process. It recognizes that moral virtue, like benevolence, is a personal virtue, not a legal obligation dictated by natural justice itself.

Legally, the state can coerce participation in certain welfare or redistribution programs through laws and enforcement—what could be called “guns of legal intimidation”—but that is a matter of positive law and state authority, rather than a reflection of natural justice or inherent moral order. Natural justice in itself does not decree that benevolence must be practiced, only that decisions affecting individuals be made fairly and impartially.

 

[Tinker Grey]

A government can be benevolent without Christianity, but my point isn’t about its capacity for kindness—it’s about the moral authority it cites when acting. If the state invokes Christian benevolence to justify policies, it’s already grounding its legitimacy in a theological framework. Once that door is opened, it can’t selectively ignore the rest of that moral system, such as biblical standards of justice, responsibility, and morality.

If, on the other hand, the government is acting from purely secular ethics, then Christian benevolence isn’t a valid argument in the first place. You can’t claim both divine moral credit and moral independence simultaneously.

The only moral authority for a government to cite is that which society has given it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

False premise. A government can be benevolent absent any Christianity.

And what collection of historical examples of this do you have in mind by which we who are Christian might reconsider?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The only moral authority for a government to cite is that which society has given it.

That's more an orientation for Legal Instrumentalism rather than the Rule of Law. I prefer the Rule of Law ideal for American democratic republicanism and leave the Legal Instrumentalism to the Communists outside of the U.S.

https://jilc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/The-Tension-Between-Legal-Instrumentalism-And-The-Rule-of-Law.pdf

 

[Hans Blaster]

And what collection of historical examples of this do you have in mind by which we who are Christian might reconsider?

This is going to depend on how benevolent you think the US government has been through history or most of the state governments.

 

[Larniavc]

You can’t claim both divine moral credit and moral independence simultaneously.

Correct. But you CAN say “Hey you! Yes you! You claim to adhere to a code of benevolence but are behaving in a manner incongruent with such claims.”

 

[Larniavc]

And what collection of historical examples of this do you have in mind by which we who are Christian might reconsider?

Easy.

Hm.

Well you see….. Hm.

Okay so….. well you’ve got…… Hm.

I mean…..

Er…… I meant a Platonic government?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Easy.

Hm.

Well you see….. Hm.

Okay so….. well you’ve got…… Hm.

I mean…..

Er…… I meant a Platonic government?

And here I thought you'd simply offer something like Denmark China and a large assortment of many other nations like it to point to....

 

[o_mlly]

The only moral authority for a government to cite is that which society has given it.

Do you mean to say that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and every other mass murderer in history had moral authority because "society" gave it to them?

 

[Larniavc]

Do you mean to say that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, and every other mass murderer in history had moral authority because "society" gave it to them?

I think you’ll find that people who support authoritarianism only realise that they have made a grievous error when it is too late.

There perception of what is moral is inversely proportional to how much it impacts them.

Consider the Trump voters who lost their job or whose relatives were deported mournfully asserting “I did not vote for this”.

 

[o_mlly]

I think you’ll find that people who support authoritarianism only realise that they have made a grievous error when it is too late.

The issue is does society determine morality of human acts. If a society does so but then realizes their error and repents serves to confirm my contention that we cannot look to society as a authority for morality.

There perception of what is moral is inversely proportional to how much it impacts them.

A utilitarian approach is no better than the ad populum fallacy above. An immoral act remains OK if I'm fine ... until I'm not.

Consider the Trump voters who lost their job or whose relatives were deported mournfully asserting “I did not vote for this”.

Trump policies reduced my income by 25%. I still support his policies. While I would not be happy if Trump dated my sister, I would quickly hire him to watch and protect my junk yard.