Are typical liberal and conservative value systems apples and oranges?
When comparing two value systems which seem to be different Neil Levy, in A Short Introduction to Moral Relativism, explains two scenarios: one in which two people disagree because their perspective “begs the question” of the other’s value system and another in which two individuals disagree because of a set of facts.
::More::
What he means by “begs the question”, I guess it’s a logic term, is this: “We say that an argument begs the question against another view when one or more of the premises it uses to show that that view is false is itself rejected by the adherents of the disputed view”. This implies that when people disagree it may be the case that one is claiming something about an opposing argument that the person who believes that argument doesn’t in fact believe. It turns out that disagreement may often be superficial.
Levy provides an example of begging the question:
“..Someone might argue that abortion was impermissible on the grounds that abortion is the killing of an innocent person. But this argument begs the question against people who think that abortion is permissible, precisely because they deny that abortion is the killing of a person at all. Unless the opponent of abortion offers an additional argument, which demonstrates that the foetus is a person, we have no reason to be moved by her contention. In general, then, an argument begs the question against an opposing view when it is based upon a contention that ought to be the conclusion of the argument, not a premise of it.”
It is merely rhetoric which causes riffs between liberals and conservatives?
If we examine the premises of our arguments we may find out that in some scenarios we actually do share the same values but that we support different policies. Is the disagreement one of facts?
What about economics? Many conservatives vote against their economic interest. I sense that many of these same people would agree that any given administration should support an economic platform that was “in the best interest of most Americans.” So on one hand, we may share the same premise, but perhaps things are more complicated. There is the conservative notion of economic individualism and merit.
Many conservative pundits commonly use the language of personal responsibility and believe that earning a decent living is almost exclusively the role of the citizen. There seems to be a disagreement about the role of the state in creating a “fair game” and government in general. So, it may be the case that the economic views are affected by views on the nature of government.
The point? That entire ideologies have been created to deliberately provide a façade of logic, and that at its root the premises often do boil down to something akin to believing in a value system which is best for both the individual and for society.
On other issues such as abortion, liberals and conservatives may indeed not agree upon the same premises. One who views that fetuses have souls and that abortion is a form of homicide may not be able to be convinced otherwise. In order to change one’s mind one would have to convince that person to challenge their premise and/or adopt a new argument or value.
So, what is the implication of this idea?
Well maybe nothing ground breaking, but it emphasizes that on certain issues, policies can be explained in such a way that if a given conservative were intellectually honest, she or he could be persuaded of a progressive policy based upon premises she or he already agrees upon. But! In on other issues the person would have to make a leap to be persuaded and would have to adopt new values.