richardhutnik said:
What you just stated sounds like what he said, in description of conservatives. Appealing to communal duty is an appeal to guilt. It is focused on the individual to do what is right and personal responsibility to do this. The liberal view would be on the person being helped and trying to help them any way they can, even if it involves raising taxes. And this would make a lot of sense explaining how political talk is structured and what is said in it. The conservative view is, "Who really cares?" and a focus on what the giver does, because it is about what people do on a personal level. This individualistic view will also cause things not to be viewed systemically, and asking, what can be done to address systemic issues. Today, viewing poverty as a systemic issue, and not one of personal responsibility, is a liberal approach. This being said, who said there it is wrong to appeal to guilt if it gets people to do the right thing? Moral conduct has guilt as part of it. Guilt is a factor to drive people to think differently on things. |
No.. it's an appeal to duty to your comminity...
The study suggests Atheists won't give much to charity or care until they have to stare directly into the face of the reality of the situation. To me, that sounds like guilt. You don't give until you feel bad. It's not like these people don't know there are starving kids in africa. They just don't care until it's thrown in there face.
I'd say it's more compassionate is going out of your way to help others and instead of only when such problems are at your doorstep and you feel to bad to let them go away.
Though really, I'd argue the main difference between compassion and guilt is that those who are compassionate are people with false senses of entitlement.
