Conservative Boast

[Tuur]

People who score high in hierarchical world belief see the world as full of differences that matter because they usually reflect something real, inherent and significant. Such individuals often separate things of greater value from things of lesser value. You might imagine that to them the world looks full of big, bold black lines. In the opposite view—held by people with lower scores for this belief—differences tend to be seen as superficial and even silly. For those with this perspective, the world is mostly dotted lines or shades of gray.

The line relevant to the abortion debate is perhaps conception. Conservatives believe this line marks the beginning of human life and thus matters a great deal. A nonhierarchical perspective would be that life emerges incrementally across many thresholds.

Does all this go back to Platonic Forms v. Nominalism?

The idea of hierarchical = conservative doesn't seem valid to me. An easy example the liberal tendency toward centralized planning and government control. Conservative, in the US at least, is more decentralized (the concept of limited powers of central government and a greater reliance on state and local).

Applying the idea of hierarchy to abortion (and let's be clear on one thing, saying abortion when meaning abortion on demand obscures a key point) doesn't hold. Hierarchy has nothing to do with defining life. For that matter, an incremental definition of life is ludicrous and also obscures a key point. If something can be partially alive, it can also be partially dead. That's why discussions of abortion have long centered on when is it acceptable to end life. The real argument has long been when is a fetus an individual (anyone with a basic knowledge of biology knows a fetus is alive), and why the abortion on demand argument has long been that a fetus is nothing more than living tissue and not an individual. The concept of hierarchy doesn't enter into this at all.

Getting back to the OP, since you brought up abortion on demand, note that liberals are proud to embrace it. They make no secret of it. Why should they? They see it as a good thing. For the same reason they are just as pleased to be known as "progressives" as conservatives are to be known as conservatives.

 

[FireDragon76]

The idea of hierarchical = conservative doesn't seem valid to me. An easy example the liberal tendency toward centralized planning and government control.

This isn't a particularly liberal policy, and a great many on the Left do not favor command economies.

Conservative, in the US at least, is more decentralized (the concept of limited powers of central government and a greater reliance on state and local).

Not necessarily true, either. Paleoconservatives or "Communitarians" have tended to favor more intrusion of government into peoples private lives.

Applying the idea of hierarchy to abortion (and let's be clear on one thing, saying abortion when meaning abortion on demand obscures a key point) doesn't hold. Hierarchy has nothing to do with defining life. For that matter, an incremental definition of life is ludicrous and also obscures a key point.

You haven't established how an incremental notion of life is ludicrous.

If one has a panpsychist metaphysics, then something like an incremental notion of life is not ludicrous.

 

[iarwain]

I say I am a Conservative because I am one, it's not a boast. To me, it means I want a smaller Federal government, and that I am in favor of the nuclear family and traditional Judeo-Christian values. Progressives seem to favor an "anything goes" type morality.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I say I am a Conservative because I am one, it's not a boast. To me, it means I want a smaller Federal government, and that I am in favor of the nuclear family and traditional Judeo-Christian values. Progressives seem to favor an "anything goes" type morality.

Or another way of saying, fewer fixed concepts and boundaries.

But "traditional Judeo-Christian values" today often seem to exclude justice for the lower class.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Or another way of saying, fewer fixed concepts and boundaries.

But "traditional Judeo-Christian values" today often seem to exclude justice for the lower class.

Do Christian values exclude justice for the lower class? Do you believe Christian moral boundaries are bad for society?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Do Christian values exclude justice for the lower class?

In our society Christian values seem to emphasize "take care of yourself".

Do you believe Christian moral boundaries are bad for society?

No

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In our society Christian values seem to emphasize "take care of yourself".

Do you consider the responsibility to take care of yourself an Anti Christian value? Conservatism or genuine rightwing thought is not this totalizing libertarian attitude where the individually is solely responsible for him or herself, but it doesn't take this liberal view that the solution to these problems is more government funding. Rather building up local institutions and especially relations, friends, family and faith are what support a community more so than centralized governments.

Also, given that Christian moral boundaries aren't bad for society in your view, what is your problem with the conservatives supporting said boundaries?

 

[FireDragon76]

Or another way of saying, fewer fixed concepts and boundaries.

Or maybe different boundaries, in some cases. At one time, slavery, bear baiting, child labor, and witch hunts were considered morally acceptable, even by Christians, for the most part.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Or maybe different boundaries, in some cases. At one time, slavery, bear baiting, child labor, and witch hunts were considered morally acceptable, even by Christians, for the most part.

Do you desire to erase all Christian boundaries Fire?

 

[FireDragon76]

Do you desire to erase all Christian boundaries Fire?

No. I advocate thinking about any presumed boundaries critically, however.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No. I advocate thinking about any presumed boundaries critically, however.

What Christian boundaries would you like to see retained?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Do you consider the responsibility to take care of yourself an Anti Christian value?

Of course not. But some people come into this world with a great deal more resources than others. They may have the responsibility but not the resources nor ability to care completely for themselves. What do Christian values say about that and how well do we live up to them?

Conservatism or genuine rightwing thought is not this totalizing libertarian attitude where the individually is solely responsible for him or herself, but it doesn't take this liberal view that the solution to these problems is more government funding. Rather building up local institutions and especially relations, friends, family and faith are what support a community more so than centralized governments.

And what if that is not adequate? Does government have any responsibility?

Also, given that Christian moral boundaries aren't bad for society in your view, what is your problem with the conservatives supporting said boundaries?

It depends on the boundary and how it is supported.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Of course not. But some people come into this world with a great deal more resources than others. They may have the responsibility but not the resources nor ability to care completely for themselves. What do Christian values say about that and how well do we live up to them?

Well I don't think we should support the Idea that it's the government's duty to steal resources and give them to those who have less.

And what if that is not adequate? Does government have any responsibility?

The Government has some responsibility but it must not be totalizing nor should it be to the destruction of local institutions.

It depends on the boundary and how it is supported.

Give an example of a boundary that is Christian that you have a problem with.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Well I don't think we should support the Idea that it's the government's duty to steal resources and give them to those who have less.

The Government has some responsibility but it must not be totalizing nor should it be to the destruction of local institutions.

Give an example of a boundary that is Christian that you have a problem with.

Marriage/same sex unions. Each church can define what they will celebrate and allow as marriage. We don't need government restrictions.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Marriage/same sex unions. Each church can define what they will celebrate and allow as marriage. We don't need government restrictions.

So communities should be allowed to discriminate against those who can and can not get married? Do you believe said communities should have the freedom to operate in their private life on that basis or must they be forced to recognize unions they do not approve of by centralized governments?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So communities should be allowed to discriminate against those who can and can not get married?

Within their own faith community and recognize as valid and licit in that community. Yes.

Do you believe said communities should have the freedom to operate in their private life on that basis or must they be forced to recognize unions they do not approve of by centralized governments?

Private life of a community? Can you say more about what you mean?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Within their own faith community and recognize as valid and licit in that community. Yes.

But outside of their own faith community, in order to participate in wider society they cannot bring that private faith into the public sphere right?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But outside of their own faith community, in order to participate in wider society they cannot bring that private faith into the public sphere right?

Not if it impinges on the rights of others.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not if it impinges on the rights of others.

Rights are merely standards of behavior imposed on a population. If for instance you have one society which says it's a right to procure an abortion, any action against that will be perceived as an attack on said right. Are secular human rights, more important to you than Christian moral standards? In which case the Christian moral standards will have to bend to accommodate the rights of others in society.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Are secular human rights, more important to you than Christian moral standards? In which case the Christian moral standards will have to bend to accommodate the rights of others in society.

We find that to be the case in our most sensitive and controversial issues.
To start with, as Christians we all do not even agree on what Christian moral standards are or how to practically apply them to our contemporary daily lives. In a pluralist society where most people no longer identify as Christian, what else are we to do?