The Technology to be Moral
As we have more technological capability, we have the capacity to accomplish more good. This creates more obligations than we would have without this technological capability. For example, being able to treat a disease makes it wrong to withhold that treatment (under many conditions) from people afflicted with the disease. Before the existence of the cure, standing around and watching somebody die of the illness was not an unjust act. There was nothing else to be done.
I think part of the conservative mindset comes of disconnecting morality from technology. People with this mindset aren't (necessarily) wingnuts - they just have a tendency to mistake the means for the ends.
For instance, consider the conservative emphasis on sexual abstinence. Before the introduction of birth control, and the invention of means to prevent most and cure many STDs, this would have been a really, really good idea. You can bet that if I found myself temporally displaced into an era where they had not invented the condom, I would stay the hell away from the opposite sex. Why? Because unwanted pregnancies and diseases are very bad. Not having sex is a very effective way to avoid those things (I do not say "completely effective", because there is always the possibility of the decision being taken out of one's hands by force). The mistake of the abstinence-only crowd is confusing the extrinsic good with the intrinsic good. They have taken the shortcut of valuing abstinence in and of itself, in spite of the fact that its rational purpose can now be displaced to much better net effect by prophylactics and, in a pinch, medical intervention.
As another example, consider the dislike shared by many conservatives of the welfare system. They value work, in and of itself. I have not seen any conservatives objecting to the fact that many people are paid to do work that is unnecessary or could be done by a machine. I spent a summer selling tickets at a zoo; I called myself a vending machine and was not even being ironic. There was no reason for a human to be doing that job, but I am glad that someone considered it a wise hiring practice, because I needed the money. The irony is that the zoo could have installed a vending machine for less money than it cost to give me my uniform and pay my wage (including payment for the time it took to train me and the time I spent taking breaks). However, if they had done that, they would have pocketed the difference and I would have had no money. This is because it rankles the conservative mindset to allow doing "nothing" to yield resources. adamcadre says it nicely here (below the review of WALL-E). Unless I had done something to justify my earnings - perhaps I could buy the vending machine and lease it to the zoo - I would have been deemed unworthy.
This in spite of the fact that installing a vending machine would have been better for everyone. The vending machine would have done a faster job. When its lack of human flexibility failed it, one human supervisor could have been summoned to deal with the problem. I would have had my time back. The zoo would have had lower expenses. We as a society, however, do not go with this solution, because if we did, people with the skills of a vending machine would either starve or *gasp* have to receive payment for not doing work. Interestingly, we're willing to do that in cases where it doesn't make sense: farm subsidy. As I've heard it explained, the government pays farmers not to grow crops that would, if sold, glut the market and make the economy BSOD. All well and good. But the subsidies must at least come close to the market value of the crops that aren't being grown, or farmers wouldn't accept them because they'd be a bad deal. Why shouldn't the government allow the farmers to grow the crops, and then buy them and do something nice with them - perhaps in another country, where the market is not in danger of a glut? Oh, because that would be charity, and charity is bad.
We have made work efficient enough that not everyone needs to produce in order for everyone to live. We don't even need everyone to produce in order for everyone to live well. We are well beyond subsistence farming as a universal lifestyle, at least here in the developed world. A fear of socialism and a destructive marriage to the idea of desert prevents direct support of our entire population; a more reasonable fear of market glut prevents everyone from working in productive occupations. The result is this crap.
I think part of the conservative mindset comes of disconnecting morality from technology. People with this mindset aren't (necessarily) wingnuts - they just have a tendency to mistake the means for the ends.
For instance, consider the conservative emphasis on sexual abstinence. Before the introduction of birth control, and the invention of means to prevent most and cure many STDs, this would have been a really, really good idea. You can bet that if I found myself temporally displaced into an era where they had not invented the condom, I would stay the hell away from the opposite sex. Why? Because unwanted pregnancies and diseases are very bad. Not having sex is a very effective way to avoid those things (I do not say "completely effective", because there is always the possibility of the decision being taken out of one's hands by force). The mistake of the abstinence-only crowd is confusing the extrinsic good with the intrinsic good. They have taken the shortcut of valuing abstinence in and of itself, in spite of the fact that its rational purpose can now be displaced to much better net effect by prophylactics and, in a pinch, medical intervention.
As another example, consider the dislike shared by many conservatives of the welfare system. They value work, in and of itself. I have not seen any conservatives objecting to the fact that many people are paid to do work that is unnecessary or could be done by a machine. I spent a summer selling tickets at a zoo; I called myself a vending machine and was not even being ironic. There was no reason for a human to be doing that job, but I am glad that someone considered it a wise hiring practice, because I needed the money. The irony is that the zoo could have installed a vending machine for less money than it cost to give me my uniform and pay my wage (including payment for the time it took to train me and the time I spent taking breaks). However, if they had done that, they would have pocketed the difference and I would have had no money. This is because it rankles the conservative mindset to allow doing "nothing" to yield resources. adamcadre says it nicely here (below the review of WALL-E). Unless I had done something to justify my earnings - perhaps I could buy the vending machine and lease it to the zoo - I would have been deemed unworthy.
This in spite of the fact that installing a vending machine would have been better for everyone. The vending machine would have done a faster job. When its lack of human flexibility failed it, one human supervisor could have been summoned to deal with the problem. I would have had my time back. The zoo would have had lower expenses. We as a society, however, do not go with this solution, because if we did, people with the skills of a vending machine would either starve or *gasp* have to receive payment for not doing work. Interestingly, we're willing to do that in cases where it doesn't make sense: farm subsidy. As I've heard it explained, the government pays farmers not to grow crops that would, if sold, glut the market and make the economy BSOD. All well and good. But the subsidies must at least come close to the market value of the crops that aren't being grown, or farmers wouldn't accept them because they'd be a bad deal. Why shouldn't the government allow the farmers to grow the crops, and then buy them and do something nice with them - perhaps in another country, where the market is not in danger of a glut? Oh, because that would be charity, and charity is bad.
We have made work efficient enough that not everyone needs to produce in order for everyone to live. We don't even need everyone to produce in order for everyone to live well. We are well beyond subsistence farming as a universal lifestyle, at least here in the developed world. A fear of socialism and a destructive marriage to the idea of desert prevents direct support of our entire population; a more reasonable fear of market glut prevents everyone from working in productive occupations. The result is this crap.