So, reading Elizabeth Anderson's book, and then having a discussion with a friend about fundie Christians, I kind of realized some things about conservatives, and especially Christian conservatives. I mean, I guess I kind of knew all along, but I kind of believe that many were simply misguided, as I was, and that if they eventually got to a certain point, they would realize that their ideas are bad and harmful, and they would then abandon them, wanting the world to be a better place.
But the more I look at how such conservatives act, the more I realize that the cruelty is the point, that these ideologies breed cruelty, and that for them, a better world simply isn't possible, their ideas of morals is so skewed that it is something akin to what I would consider actually evil.
This really was made apparent for me reading Anderson's book about the work ethic being hijacked by conservatives. I don't really think the work ethic is worth saving, but the work ethic has skewed peoples' ideas of morality in a way that allow great cruelty toward their fellow humans. At the core of their worldview is a very low opinion of humanity, that they are inherently evil, and that they quite literally need the good to be beaten into them. Their morality is not based on any form of consequentialism, but a form of virtue ethics, and they don't care much about whether actions are good or bad in their outcome, but that people conform to a certain idea of morality. To a lot of conservative religious people, morality is about virtue or conformity with god's morality, whatever it is, and with the work ethic nonsense it takes a dark turn where conformity to that work ethic is moral, while rejection of it is immoral. And they feel like they have a mandate to "save" people by forcing their way of life on people through literal force. So they basically forced the poor, and often a lot of people overseas who did not share their culture or outlook on life to conform to it. They forced them to conform, and were cruel to them in order to make them comfort. They designed a system of actively punishing nonconformers and rewarding conformers. And that's how we got the economic system we got today. It isn't just that we have an economic system that doesn't serve people, that's the point. The system, in their mind, NEEDS to be cruel, to force people to conform to their sense of morality. So when you hear a story about republicans denying kids school lunches and stuff, the cruelty is the point. They literally want kids to be hungry so that they develop work ethic. They dont care if they starve, because to them, if society is not cruel to people, then people would become lax in their morality, and if that happens, society may collapse in their views.
The same is true with social issues. When conservatives are pro life and their approach to the issue is "don't have sex", while simultaenously trying to take away their birth control and sex education, the cruelty is the point. They don't seem to care that their system leads to higher levels of STDs and pregnancy. To them, the answer is simply, don't have sex. They care less about the consequences, and more about their morality. Sex outside of marriage is bad, we shouldnt try to reduce the consequences of "sin", because it isn't about the consequences, it's about the fact that premarital sex is bad in their worldview and people shouldn't be doing it. Again, the cruelty is the point, if a 12 year old has to give birth to a rape baby, then that's acceptable in their worldview. Because again, it's not about the consequences, it's about their morality.
Conservatives like to, as I put it, roll around in their own crap. They see the world as fallen, they see humans as sinful, they dont believe that the world can ever be improved, and quite frankly, they DONT CARE if people suffer. To suffer is to be human, and the sooner people learn that and get used to that, the better. We shouldnt try to alleviate peoples' suffering because if we do it might change the incentive system to allow people to commit moral transgressions instead, and we can't have that, can we?
And this is where I really started making the connection, but my friend said that it's like fundamentalists really like the idea of hell. And in a sense, they do. They like it like a conservative work ethic believer likes oppressing poor people. In their mind, hell is the epitome of what the human race has coming to it. They believe all have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of god, and that the punishment for such a thing is "death", but not just any death, nooo, they believe in this long drawn out spiritual death of people being tortured for all eternity for their sins. They literally believe that god is so righteous that this is perfectly just, and his prerogative to do, while jesus saving us from this fate is generosity. We truly deserve it but through jesus we find a way to escape this fate, amen.
To me, this isn't just NOT the epitome of morality, this is the epitome of IMMORALITY. These guys are authoritarian psychopaths who want to drag the entire human race down into the hellish world they strive to create, and they quite frankly dont care about the consequences. They dont care if people suffer or die. To them, they deserve it by virtue of existing and being sinful in the first place. I used to think this was primarily a religion problem, as divine command theory leads to this, but some religious people dont share this morality, while some secular people do. It seems to be more of an authoritarian problem. Some people are so authoritarian they believe their morality is the only way that a human is fit to live and it needs to be beaten into them. Again, the cruelty is the point. Life is cruel, life ins't fair, this is the best we can do, don't bother making it any better. And I swear a lot of these people get off on the idea of other people suffering for not conforming to their morals, it's really sickening.
And I have to kind of condemn a lot of moderate liberal types too. In a lot of ways, these guys might actually share the same core viewpoint, they're just less insane about it. But at the end of the way they too believe that humans need to be forced to conform to a certain perspective, they are just more nuanced about the concept and more willing to admit that exceptions exist, and that there are people who can do everything right and still suffer. But they still believe that people who do not conform to their value system at all should still suffer. So in a lot of ways, they'll end up devising systems with lots of means testing modeled after the elizabethian poor laws, which show generosity to those who fall into poverty through no fault of their own, but still believe those who don't at least pay lipservice to their views should suffer. It's quite common here in america, and even social democracies. It's a huge reason i dont believe the progressive work ethic is a solution to the conservative work ethic. It's just less evil. But evil is still evil.
On the work ethic question if some level of economic coercion or wage slavery is absolutely necessary for the economy to function, then so be it. But it is only justified to the extent that it is absolutely necessary. And in the long term, that necessity should go down as we can automate more and more work, to the point that eventually we should be able to run the economy entirely via voluntary participants and machines. But that doesnt happen, because these "progressives" still believe that people should be forced to a labor. They're just nicer about it.
Admittedly, even I could admit it is necessary if and only if we get to a point where without some coercion society would fall apart, but to me, it's a matter of compromising my ideals with reality. My long term goal is to liberate people from coercion. I just understand that there is a transition period where we go from where we are to my ideal where we might need to make compromises along the way. I'm simply not an ideologue to a point where I advocate for my ideas regardless of whether a pragmatic application is possible.
Which brings me to the other extreme. Some progressives are so full of utopian ideas and empathy that they miss the point entirely. They will bash people and shame them and put them on blast over minor doctrinal differences or simply not going as extreme as them. At that point, they're simply not living in reality in my opinion, or they're picking a fight where I dont think a fight should be had. To some extent, even I recognize that there's only so much that we can do to alleviate suffering, and that at some point, maybe we need to pick our battles, and I just disagree with the left over what battles should be fought, and how. As I said, i do have a conservative side to my views that I am more willing to admit to at this point. But it's based primarily on my own ideas of pragmatism and recognizing the practical limits of doing things. If we can accomplish something and the costs are worth it, we should do it to alleviate suffering. I just differ with much of the left over what issues should be prioritized and how they should be approached.
And yeah, I just felt like I should close out the year by writing about this. It's been stewing in my mind for a few days, and I believe this political rant is required. But yeah, I just dont get conservatism these days. My ideals are ultimately based in this reality, for better or for worse. if we can make the world better, we should, and we shouldnt make people suffer just to make them conform to arbitrary morality. However, nor should we waste precious political capital on addressing the wrong issues in the wrong way. Hence why I have a disdain both for conservatives, and a lot of leftists and tend to operate in a middle ground.
No comments:
Post a Comment