True? — frank

For the majority of politicians, doubtful. Even if the all say they do it to improve the lives of the people, I don't think it is out of compassion.

I think compassion is a driving force behind progressivism (and at times this is perhaps more aptly called "empathy"). But I disagree with this:

Therefore, progressives who have no compassion are fooling themselves. They're just trying to own the higher moral ground without the morality to go with it. — frank

Of course one could make such an argument, but every group value is susceptible to being transformed into untethered taboo, and this is also true of compassion. So if a group of compassionate people win the day and their program becomes established as a societal norm, then the reification of compassion will begin to present the same problems that attend the reification of any other societal norm.

As an example, a group or individual might become vegan on the basis of compassion, but then once that connection between veganism and compassion becomes ossified such people can easily fall into the trap of imposing their veganism on communities which are reliant on animal products. The taboo ushers in black and white thinking, "Everyone who is vegan is compassionate and therefore good; everyone who is not vegan lacks compassion and is therefore bad," and this in turn provides the groundwork for the second-order virtue signaling that you reference.

In that example there ends up being a limited compassion (i.e. compassion for animals but not for the communities that rely on animals). That double-standard endpoint can be extrapolated, and this is because "compassion" is too vague and undirected to function as a sound value (or in Aristotelian terms, as a central virtue). In real life to be compassionate towards one group is also to be uncompassionate towards an opposed group, at least where political action is concerned.

...and I should add that although the modern mind balks at the explicit claim, "Everyone who is X is good and everyone who is not is bad" (even though that claim is constantly being made implicitly), the formula itself is not the problem. The problem is a superficial X. For example, Aristotle's X would be "just, temperate, prudent, and courageous," and it is precisely the complexity and robustness of the cardinal virtues that make such an X plausible. "Compassion" is too one-dimensional to serve that role.

That is an amazing answer. Thank you.

- Sure. :up:

Is the implication that non- progressivism is not compassionate? That is to say, unless compassion is exclusive to progressivism then I dont see how you can usw it as the basis for progressivism the way you are.

Is the implication that non- progressivism is not compassionate? That is to say, unless compassion is exclusive to progressivism then I dont see how you can usw it as the basis for progressivism the way you are. — DingoJones

No, but the driving force of conservatism isn't compassion. It's practicality.

They are political positions, wouldn't the driving force be political change?
Also, compassion can be a driving force but be tempered by practicality, they aren’t mutually exclusive.
Im trying to understand how you have boiled progressivism and conservatism down to these particular “driving force’s”.

I have a theory that the driving force behind progressivism is compassion. Therefore, progressives who have no compassion are fooling themselves. They're just trying to own the higher moral ground without the morality to go with it.

True? — frank

If you are a right-wing libertarian and believe in free market, rights of the individual and limited government making the best society possible, why wouldn't that also be compassionate? Libertarians believe that their way makes the society function better, so why wouldn't that be compassion too? There's no hidden sinister agenda behind to have some "social darwinism" to eradicate the people libertarians hate. Libertarians look at Switzerland and think it works just fine.

I think the real issue is collectivism and the role of the government that make progressives differ from others. Government, the state and legislation are there tools to address social problems and inequality for the progressives. Not the market mechanism and choices of the individual. I think this is the core in progressivism.

They are political positions, wouldn't the driving force be political change? — DingoJones

Conservatives of any generation tend to be suspicious of change. If they embrace it, they probably do so because they see the change as a return to a traditional state.

Progressives feel comfortable stepping into the unknown. That comfort level is bolstered by moral conviction tied to a sense of righting old wrongs. The downtrodden are always in their sights, whereas the conservative says the downtrodden will always be with us and stability is the highest good.

Also, compassion can be a driving force but be tempered by practicality, they aren’t mutually exclusive. — DingoJones

I didn't say they were mutually exclusive, but note the next time you're looking at progressives, how interested they are in matters of practicality. This isn't a good time in history to observe conservatives in the US because they're in the shadows of a populist who has taken over their party.

If you are a right-wing libertarian and believe in free market, rights of the individual and limited government making the best society possible, why wouldn't that also be compassionate? — ssu

Because it leaves a chunk of the population with no safety net.

Government, the state and legislation are there tools to address social problems and inequality for the progressives. — ssu

Conservatives are usually willing to let nature take care of social problems. They think that when we interfere with nature (due to an overload of compassion), we inevitably undermine a process that leads to social health and well-being. This process happens to be brutal, but conservatives are ok with that. This is because compassion isn't their driving value.