The notion of karma comes with lots of new-age baggage, but it is an old and very conservative idea. It is the Sanskrit word for "deed" or "action," and the law of karma says that for every action, there is an equal and morally commensurate reaction. Kindness, honesty and hard work will (eventually) bring good fortune; cruelty, deceit and laziness will (eventually) bring suffering. No divine intervention is required; it's just a law of the universe, like gravity.
Karma is not an exclusively Hindu idea. It combines the universal human desire that moral accounts should be balanced with a belief that, somehow or other, they will be balanced....
Liberals in the 1960s and 1970s seemed intent on protecting people from the punitive side of karma. Premarital sex was separated from its consequences (by birth control, abortion and more permissive norms); bearing children out of wedlock was made affordable (by passing costs on to taxpayers); even violent crime was partially shielded from punishment (by liberal reforms that aimed to protect defendants and limit the powers of the police).
Now jump ahead to today's ongoing financial and economic crisis. Again, those guilty of corruption and irresponsibility have escaped the consequences of their wrongdoing, rescued first by President Bush and then by President Obama. Bailouts and bonuses sent unimaginable sums of the taxpayers' money to the very people who brought calamity upon the rest of us. Where is punishment for the wicked?
...One of the biggest disagreements between the political left and right is their conflicting notions of fairness. Across many surveys and experiments, we find that liberals think about fairness in terms of equality, whereas conservatives think of it in terms of karma. In our survey for YourMorals.org, we asked Americans how much they agreed with a variety of statements about fairness and liberty, including this one: "Ideally, everyone in society would end up with roughly the same amount of money." Liberals were evenly divided on it, but conservatives and libertarians firmly rejected it.
On more karmic notions of fairness, however, conservatives and libertarians begin to split apart. Here's a statement about the positive side of karma: "Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most." Everyone agrees, but conservatives agree more enthusiastically than liberals and libertarians, whose responses were identical.
And here's a statement about the negative side of karma: "Whenever possible, a criminal should be made to suffer in the same way that his victim suffered." Liberals reject this harsh notion, and libertarians mildly reject it. But conservatives are slightly positive about it....
Libertarians are closer to conservatives on two of the five main psychological "foundations" of morality that we study—concerns about care and fairness (as described above). But on the other three psychological foundations—group loyalty, respect for authority and spiritual sanctity—libertarians are indistinguishable from liberals and far apart from conservatives. We call these the three "binding" foundations because they are the psychological systems used by groups—including religious groups, the military and even college fraternities—to bind people together into tight communities of trust, cooperation and shared identity. When you think about morality as a way of binding individuals together, it's no wonder that libertarians (who prize individual liberty above all else) part company with conservatives.
All of this makes imminent good sense to me. I can see myself in there as a conservative in some ways. Let me illustrate that. I recently visited a home with children. I knew it would be a reasonably poor home. I wasn't there on volunteer business. It was a private matter. We have lots of toys the children have now grown out of. A particular toy would make a great gift I thought. But I left it in the boot of my car. If the home was looked after, if the kids were looked after, I would leave the gift. If the property was a mess with broken toys strewn all over the section (not uncommon in my experience) I would not leave the truck. There is my sense of deserving. Happily I was able to leave the children falling all over the gift.
Certainly for me fairness is about deserving, not about divvying up regardless.
On the other hand I am not a believer in punishment. If I was volunteering my job would be to help the family establish some routine and order and posivity which I would take on with gusto and cheerfulness which sometimes diminishes after a few visits. But I believe in everyone having a chance, everyone having potential. So there I am closer to the liberal.
The idea of having to conform to group-think or behaviour however leaves me cold and I move rapidly away from the conservative. Politically I am neither right nor left.
Can you recognise yourself in this article?
8 comments:
But I believe in everyone having a chance, everyone having potential.
Coincidentally, I just asked you about that before reading this post. Maybe now I have the answer?
Also, as a self-labelled conservative I would distinguish between the notion of every-one deserving a second chance and criminals being allowed to escape justice. The implication with the article suggesting conservatives come down harder on justice (which I personally do) needs to also be considered in line with supporting rehabilitation and post-justice life.
It seems this article suggests liberals fail to distinguish as strongly between the two phases.
Sort of - sure, give him a second chance AFTER serving his time and/or expressing genuine contrition or proving effort to reform.
"Fairness" to me is a completely imaginary concept. That leftists spend so much time pursuing it is symptomatic of their separation from reality. I feel Libertarians pursue their own perception of Liberty in much the same way. What both leftists and Libertarians want cannot be achieved because both objectives are underpinned by an irrational doctrine.
Conservatism is not supported by that kind of unrealistic dogma. It existed in America and the UK for a long time and only fell into disrepair in the 1900's under the seeping infiltration of the left. Government steadily grew and Conservatism fell under attack.
Conservatism's objective can be reached by the simple expedient of de-funding and shrinking government. This is a practical objective that requires no belief in anything spiritual, biblical or doctrinal.
Do away with big government and its cushioning of immorality, and wrong doers are forced to face reality. Its that simple.
That is why the focus of the fight against today's totalitarian socialist condition has to be focused on that one objective. (or two objectives if you like) Cutting the size of government and cutting government spending.
Concern with any other objective is a waste of time and resources.
"Fairness" to me is a completely imaginary concept. That leftists spend so much time pursuing it is symptomatic of their separation from reality. I feel Libertarians pursue their own perception of Liberty in much the same way. What both leftists and Libertarians want cannot be achieved because both objectives are underpinned by an irrational doctrine.
Conservatism is not supported by that kind of unrealistic dogma. It existed in America and the UK for a long time and only fell into disrepair in the 1900's under the seeping infiltration of the left. Government steadily grew and Conservatism fell under attack.
Conservatism's objective can be reached by the simple expedient of de-funding and shrinking government. This is a practical objective that requires no belief in anything spiritual, biblical or doctrinal.
Do away with big government and its cushioning of immorality, and wrong doers are forced to face reality. Its that simple.
That is why the focus of the fight against today's totalitarian socialist condition has to be focused on that one objective. (or two objectives if you like) Cutting the size of government and cutting government spending.
Concern with any other objective is a waste of time and resources.
If only that were all there was to conservatism, in the US or UK.
"Do away with big government and its cushioning of immorality, and wrong doers are forced to face reality. Its that simple."
Substitute the word "immorality" for "personal responsibility" and that is a statement a Libertarian would have no issue with.
Immorality leads to the question...by whos/what standard? The only immoral act that is the true concern of objective Government is the initiation of force by one against another...its onlty that that violates the rights of another...nothing else.
"Immorality leads to the question...by whos/what standard?"
So there is no moral standard ever? The very sentiment that has allowed socialism- the stealing of one man's possessions and earnings and their redistribution to those who support socialism.
Gawd you Libertarians are a waste of time with your fucking mindless adherence to your quasi-religious doctrine and your crippled political perspectives.
It wouldn't be so bad if you were as irrelevant as you should be, but preaching idiotic sermons in support of left wing concepts while cloaking yourselves as anti-left is what makes you, in your pathetic infantile naivety and ignorance, so dangerous to those who oppose socialism. White ants.
"So there is no moral standard ever?"
there certainly is, it just doesn't have to come from religious scripture and commandments as conservatives like to think.
the rest of your post is useless drivel as usual RB. Conservatives share quite a lot with leftists than they like to believe and scream about otherwise
Lindsay, you descended like Lady Bountiful on a poor household to deliver a toy (from the thrift shop no doubt!) but had first to check that the house was clean and the family deserving. How disgusting! I am sure that family would have had nothing but fear of you if they knew you... Having discovered your blog, I see how poisonous you really are! I am glad I am not on the DPB any longer - but I am still a solo mother - so how are you going to punish me now, for "taking these children away from their sainted Daddy", or is that not your motivation? Or - are you in fact a male, as I begin to suspect?
Debbie, The person I was visiting was a father. The toy I took had belonged to my son. Make up whatever will satisfy your perceptions.
Post a Comment