I am learning about some of the fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats aka Conservatives and Liberals. In a free online course from Yale University named Moralities of Everyday Life.
There are five fundemental elements of morality that are mentioned in the course. Those are
3) in-group loyalty
Liberals are said to value the first two elements and downgrade the latter three while conservatives are fair and balanced and regard all five equally.
I should point out that the course has a moderately leftist center of balance. A unstated assumption is that God isn’t active or existent. Science is godless and thus its investigations need start from the point of view of godless objectivity. Unfortunately that may be wrong with those blinders on.
There was a portrayal of Immanuel Kant as the prime representative of deontological morality (as opposed to moral relativism or consequentialism that is an offspring of act-based utilitarianism). Kant’s essential value to philosophers was in epistemology more so than morality.
In the Bible wicked is the term used for what we call evil. Natural disasters are called evil. Another nit to pick is the use of the word sin. To sin means to miss the mark of, as in archery. Sin means people are going off course, wrong and perhaps finally so. It is not a simple list of bad or permissible acts.
Kant of course felt he could infer moral systems from epistemological considerations; inaccurately I guess. What was remarkable about Kant was his delineation of perception, reasoning and knowledge into three categories regarding what is known or can be known; epistemology.
The course has a good Yale Prof of Psychology inquiring into the nature of what morality is. Some in the field would like to find a scientific basis of morality. Even inquiring into innate moral laws reminds me of Marcus Tullius Cicero’s Treatise on Natural Law. Nothing new in that. It is quite possible to make erroneous judgments regarding observation of experimental results concerning causality and the criterion of occurrence.
Anyway to make short work of this note, and to the point. Liberals aka Democrats are against authority and establishment, haven’t loyalty to the United States and want existential change because they regard themselves as impure. Dirtycrats were thus pro-homo marriage. They usurped a rational heterosexual role and put on that dress for-themselves in an effort to remove the stains of impurity.
Democrats were for the malfeasant Obamacare because of concern about harm to the down-dogs. The rash Obamacare missed the mark of creating a free national health care walk-in system for the poor and those middle-class untouchables denied insurance coverage because of pre-exiting conditions. All that needed to be done was to expand the V.A. Hospital system and link it with poor peoples clinics around the nation and screen prospective patients through a worker’s comp kind of interview.
Democrats are against border security, job security and pragmatic national democracy because it isn’t socialist enough and they are disloyal and hate the insider-group that is already here. Democrats prefer to revolt to put the down-dogs on the top through radical change. So it is easy to understand Democrats.
That party and the Republicans lack education sufficient to bring about ecological economic reform.
I have enjoyed the course thus far. The content seems to lack philosophical depth in understanding ontologies (see W.V.O. Quine) and epistemology. Another common error is to fail historical knowledge concerning civilization and its changes. Yet another is the lack of solid theological education such that they comprehend the facts about Christianity, meaningfully. It is much deeper than they view it ordinarily.
I would guess that at some point moral considerations should include mention of the role of mass agents of socialization in foisting new moral balances upon the people of the United States. The very rich own the broadcast media and train the public to accept the moral norms they program them with.