Rant about Personal Responsibility
A few months ago I said I would rant about a topic chosen by my friends of Live Journal. There weren't many votes, but the thing that got the majority of the votes was my rant on responsibility and how conservatives and liberals view the issue. Well, I never got around to it and just kinda forgot. Well, I remembered and have decided to finally get around to that rant.
I've notices a difference between conservatives and liberals (one among many, of course) in how they view issues of blame and personal responsibility. I think I realized the heart of these differences after getting into a discussion about school shootings. I notices that many liberals wanted to lay the blame of school shooting on some element of society - violent video games or movies, bullies, poverty, irresponsible parents, availability of guns, etc. Anything but pointing the blame at the killers themselves.
Conservatives on the other hand were more than willing to blame the killers, even attribute Satan-like evil to the kids. I don't mind that so much, but what did bother me about the conservative outlook was that they were so focused on blaming the killers (which is right and good to do) that they cannot put their actions into perspective enough to wonder why they might have done it.
I remember suggesting that maybe the reason that the Columbine shooters might have killed was because they were social misfits and that they were picks on and didn't in with others at their school and that they were picked on, alienated, etc. Now, this theory may or may not be true, but I think its a reasonable question to ask. But for some reason some of my fellow conservatives are outraged by the suggestion that the killers could have a reason for committing their crimes. I asked why they would do such a thing - the answer I got was that they were evil. I find this answer unsatisfactory. Obviously they were evil (to the degree to which anything can be said to be evil) considering they killed innocent or relatively innocent people - but that isn't a satisfactory explanation for homicidal and suicidal behavior as far as I'm concerned. I feel like its an important question to ask - why people do certain bad things. It doesn't mean I blame them any less for doing these bad things or that I would punish wrong doers any less than other people. I just feel that motivation and understanding that motivation is important when examining evil/violent/destructive acts.
This attitude, I think, is behind the biggest misconception many conservatives have about the Middle East and foreign affairs. Why did they attack us? "Because they're evil and we're good. Because they hate our freedom" Obviously this explanation should be unsatisfactory to anybody, aside perhaps from a few Paladins out there fighting orcs. It enrages many people to suggest that evil people (and once again, I can't argue with calling terrorists who target civilians evil) might have a reason for the actions. Not a justification, just a reason. I think this obsession over personal responsibility - to the exclusion of wanting to look at causes or motivation - is a major failing of modern conservatism.
Of course, on the liberal side, the problems of not wanting to assign personal responsibility to wrong doers are pretty obvious. From slapping criminals on the wrist to government programs which attempt to help those who do not help themselves. We've probably all heard these criticisms before, I know I have been hearing them for years. I think the problem with the liberal approach, one where blame is placed not on individuals but on something else - likely something ephemeral or insubstantial, like society - is that when bad behavior isn't punished then there is no motivation to stop. When blame isn't assigned to the individual wrong doer, then by default it seems to go to everything else. Not isn't the goal of course, but in practice when criminals aren't punished they go free and commit crimes again - on a large scale this causes suffering for everybody.
These days there is a drive for harsher penalties for crimes - unfortunately its absurd things like mandatory minimums for drug crimes. What voters do these laws appeal to, people who were old in the 60's and hated hippies? It'd be nice if rapists served as much time on average as drug offenders. But, that's a bit of a tangent.
I think that the idea of not assigning personal responsibility can also be passed along to nanny-state type laws. Banning cigarettes or a new law they're trying to pass in Mississippi that makes it illegal for restaurants to serve food to obese people. Laws against drugs are part of this as well. Basically the attitude that people aren't responsible for their actions (foolish or harmful as they may be) then it becomes society's (the government's) job to protect people from themselves - something I consider extremely undesirable.
This rant doesn't apply to all liberals or all conservatives of course. Its just a general trend I seem to have noticed.
I've notices a difference between conservatives and liberals (one among many, of course) in how they view issues of blame and personal responsibility. I think I realized the heart of these differences after getting into a discussion about school shootings. I notices that many liberals wanted to lay the blame of school shooting on some element of society - violent video games or movies, bullies, poverty, irresponsible parents, availability of guns, etc. Anything but pointing the blame at the killers themselves.
Conservatives on the other hand were more than willing to blame the killers, even attribute Satan-like evil to the kids. I don't mind that so much, but what did bother me about the conservative outlook was that they were so focused on blaming the killers (which is right and good to do) that they cannot put their actions into perspective enough to wonder why they might have done it.
I remember suggesting that maybe the reason that the Columbine shooters might have killed was because they were social misfits and that they were picks on and didn't in with others at their school and that they were picked on, alienated, etc. Now, this theory may or may not be true, but I think its a reasonable question to ask. But for some reason some of my fellow conservatives are outraged by the suggestion that the killers could have a reason for committing their crimes. I asked why they would do such a thing - the answer I got was that they were evil. I find this answer unsatisfactory. Obviously they were evil (to the degree to which anything can be said to be evil) considering they killed innocent or relatively innocent people - but that isn't a satisfactory explanation for homicidal and suicidal behavior as far as I'm concerned. I feel like its an important question to ask - why people do certain bad things. It doesn't mean I blame them any less for doing these bad things or that I would punish wrong doers any less than other people. I just feel that motivation and understanding that motivation is important when examining evil/violent/destructive acts.
This attitude, I think, is behind the biggest misconception many conservatives have about the Middle East and foreign affairs. Why did they attack us? "Because they're evil and we're good. Because they hate our freedom" Obviously this explanation should be unsatisfactory to anybody, aside perhaps from a few Paladins out there fighting orcs. It enrages many people to suggest that evil people (and once again, I can't argue with calling terrorists who target civilians evil) might have a reason for the actions. Not a justification, just a reason. I think this obsession over personal responsibility - to the exclusion of wanting to look at causes or motivation - is a major failing of modern conservatism.
Of course, on the liberal side, the problems of not wanting to assign personal responsibility to wrong doers are pretty obvious. From slapping criminals on the wrist to government programs which attempt to help those who do not help themselves. We've probably all heard these criticisms before, I know I have been hearing them for years. I think the problem with the liberal approach, one where blame is placed not on individuals but on something else - likely something ephemeral or insubstantial, like society - is that when bad behavior isn't punished then there is no motivation to stop. When blame isn't assigned to the individual wrong doer, then by default it seems to go to everything else. Not isn't the goal of course, but in practice when criminals aren't punished they go free and commit crimes again - on a large scale this causes suffering for everybody.
These days there is a drive for harsher penalties for crimes - unfortunately its absurd things like mandatory minimums for drug crimes. What voters do these laws appeal to, people who were old in the 60's and hated hippies? It'd be nice if rapists served as much time on average as drug offenders. But, that's a bit of a tangent.
I think that the idea of not assigning personal responsibility can also be passed along to nanny-state type laws. Banning cigarettes or a new law they're trying to pass in Mississippi that makes it illegal for restaurants to serve food to obese people. Laws against drugs are part of this as well. Basically the attitude that people aren't responsible for their actions (foolish or harmful as they may be) then it becomes society's (the government's) job to protect people from themselves - something I consider extremely undesirable.
This rant doesn't apply to all liberals or all conservatives of course. Its just a general trend I seem to have noticed.