Mac77 said:
That was a very good post from someone who probably disagrees with me on many issues
I wish there were more people like you on the left
We probably do disagree on many issues, but something I like to point out to my classes whenever political discussion flare up is that we're probably not so different as we suppose. There are certainly bad people in the world, but leaving those aside, I like to ask questions kinda like the following:
1. Suppose you're out in public somewhere and you see a man start beating a child. I don't mean spanking, I mean beating with the obvious intent to cause serious injury or death. Stomping, kicking, picking up a chair and smashing it over the poor child's body, that sort of thing. What would you do?
My observation is that people's answers differ in the specifics, but share certain things in common--specifically, almost everyone answers that they'd do whatever they could do to intervene. Able-bodied men usually say they'd tell someone to call the police and then tackle the guy. Those with little hope of a successful physical intervention would alert others and call the police.
2. Suppose someone attacks you, you defend yourself successfully, and the guy is arrested. The prosecutor wants you to testify to the effect that he should be thrown in prison for the rest of his life. But you come to be in possession (nevermind how) of overwhelming and convincing evidence that the person in question is out of his mind--his mental problems are so bad that he literally cannot have comprehended what he was doing when he attacked you. What would you do?
Again, most people, conservative or liberal, say they would be merciful and prefer that he be confined to a hospital. Obviously, he is dangerous and must be contained, but he doesn't deserve to be punished. Occasionally, people try to say something like "well, I'm skeptical that such evidence could exist." The point of the exercise is to ignore that and suppose you realize in this case that, indeed, the fellow is just completely insane. Most people agree that his inability to understand what is going on, including his own actions, excuses him from being held responsible in a punitive manner.
3. Suppose tomorrow incontrovertible evidence is presented that after (say) two weeks from conception, a zygote has a soul, can think thoughts, has feelings, and so on. Would you continue to support abortion?
A few liberals say yes, but they're on the extreme end. Most say no, that would cause us to seriously rethink abortion rights and reproductive rights in general. Liberals tend to support abortion rights because they believe a zygote is not yet a person--i.e. does not have feelings, thoughts, or a subjective point of view, cannot feel pain, and so on. If that is shown to be false, most people recognize that means you cannot just kill the zygote.
Anyway, you get the point. Where people disagree is generally not at the level of important basic moral intuitions. It's in how those intuitions figure into public policy. I have to believe that with at least that much common ground, we can figure out how to compromise with each other. But first, we have to learn respect for the very different point of view. I have a lot more to say about this matter, but I'll stop here.
