In a former post, titled "Traditional" vs. "Liberal" Morality, I outlined the underlying models of two moral views, which are implicit in our culture. Since then I have written more on the subject, and thought a bit more about it as well.
The contest between the two seems to be only the tip of the iceberg. The split runs deep through the culture, touching on other subjects, such as authority, human nature, faith, and reason.
It seems like it would be a good idea to explore the connections.
But first, it seems to me to be dangerous to accept the terms currently used. They are, at best, misleading, and at worst, lies. The implication buried in the subtext is, of course, that "Liberal" morality is not traditional.
But, in fact, "Liberal" morality is more traditional than "Traditional" morality, as I pointed out in my first post on the subject. Beyond that, even a cursory glance at the differences between the two makes it clear that "Liberal" morality is rooted in values that most conservatives would espouse.
So, instead of "traditional" and "liberal" let's use more descriptive terms:
|
Underlying Models |
Authoritarian Approach |
Democratic Approach |
|
Political Model |
Kingdom: The system serves those with power; everyone else serves the system. |
Democracy/Republic: The system serves everyone; power is shared. |
|
Model of Human Nature |
Generally Untrustworthy, Evil, Selfish. Slaves to be kept in line. |
Generally Trustworthy, Good, Empathic. Companions to be helped and respected. |
|
Model of Ought, Morality |
Law: A set of rules to be followed—"Do as you're told." |
Wisdom: Ways of achieving goals—"Here's what worked for me." |
|
Model of Authority |
Forced-Based: The strongest rule. |
Faith-Based: The trust-worthy rule. |
These are two, quite different, ways of perceiving the world, which often get conflated, with the result that the authoritarian models hide behind the legitimacy of the democratic models.
A president, elected as a sign of trust, takes the attitude that he cannot be criticized since he is now king. Our natural aversion to murder gets used as evidence that there are a set of moral laws.
I would suggest that both American liberals and American conservatives belong, for the most part, on the side of the democratic approach, by nature. I would further suggest that the far Christian Right should reconsider which side Jesus would be on.
Beyond that, I think it's a very good idea to look closely at the chart from time to time, and notice who benefits from an authoritarian approach. Anytime we are tempted, and we are all tempted sooner or later, to adopt an authoritarian stance on some particularly important issue, we should remember who, in the long run, we are aiding.
Not that there is anything wrong with the rich and the powerful—they are not evil anymore than we are. But there is something wrong with unbalanced wealth and unbalanced power, and the dangers they pose to democracy.
At least, that's what I think today.
