Are Republicans inherently selfish?

[u/SignificantCrow]

Not referring to every individual obviously but as a whole, compared to democrats/independents they seem to really only care about themselves or their immediate family and pretty much have a “f**k em” attitude towards literally everyone else. Does anyone else feel this way?

This would explain why so many are against social policies but have no issue dumping much more money into the military instead, for example.

[u/Jaded_Hold_1342]

There is a real philosophical difference between conservatives and liberals. A difference in how far the moral circle extends.

Conservatives feel strong moral duty to people close to them.. close within their network and community, and feel less duty to others outside this circle. Liberals feel moral duty extends further to people outside of their network and community.

Liberals will accept restrictions and inconvenience imposed upon them so that there can be fairness to people they dont know. Conservatives wont.

This is why Liberals think Conservatives are 'selfish', and why Conservatives think Liberals are 'overly controlling'... Its a different philosophy about the extent of moral duty.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6763434/

[u/targz254 → u/Jaded_Hold_1342]

Yes, a better word is in-group preference as selfish is strictly only caring about oneself.

[u/No-Carrot4267 → u/Jaded_Hold_1342]

So based on what you said:

Conservatives feel strong moral duty to people close to them.. close within their network and community, and feel less duty to others outside this circle. Liberals feel moral duty extends further to people outside of their network and community.

And based on merriem Webster:

concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

Looks like conservatives are selfish 😂

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/No-Carrot4267]

But it’s not really one’s own advantage, it’s more of a family/tribe advantage. That’s why, for example, they endorse sending ICE to blue cities and freak out when ICE nabs a member of their own community.

That person was “on their team” so they weren’t supposed to get touched.

It’s not that it’s selfish so much as utterly incompatible with the concept of equality under the law.

[u/ShackbaggeredSluber → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

One can make the argument that the foundation of family/tribe advantage is specifically focused on one’s own advantage. It’s a quid pro quo mentality. A zero-sum concept. I give you, but you HAVE to give me, otherwise no. It’s why their moral circle doesn’t extend beyond their tribe. They can’t extrapolate beyond an immediate benefit and complex solutions aren’t comprehensible. It has to be, if I help you, I get something out of this. It goes even further when you understand that’s where their entitlement comes from and how they can justify things like taking government money without supporting legislation that does the same thing. Or that it’s ok that they commit voter fraud while crying about it being an illegal immigrant thing. They did something so THEY’RE entitled to benefit, but not you. They’re entitled to break the rules, but not you. Because they earned it.

It’s all coming from an entirely selfish perspective. They would not help the family/tribe at all if they don’t see some benefit to themselves. Ask anyone who grew up in a conservative environment. They’ll give you examples how family/tribe denied help within the circle for one reason or another. Either because they don’t see an immediate benefit to themselves, or because they’re being petty because they feel slighted for some past transgression.

They’re all toddlers.

[u/Jaded_Hold_1342 → u/ShackbaggeredSluber]

Strongly correlated with urban vs rural population densities.

I think one reason is practical.

If you live in a city, there are lots and lots of people. People have to follow some sense of rules and regulations... otherwise life becomes unmanageable.

If you live in the country, you can sort of do what you want, and your actions dont degrade the quality of life of your community very much.

Example:

Wells and Septic systems vs Utility water and Sewers... If you live in a rural area, you have a well and a septic system... you built it.. its yours... its on your land. You can use whatever water you want... You can throw whatever you want in your sepetic, and you are responsible for the outcome. If it breaks, you fix it. No one else in your community cares at all about your well or your septic system.

In urban areas... you cant do wells and septic systems... they would overlap the property boundaries, a you'd have your neighbors shit flowing into your water supply.. it becomes a sanitation problem and requires regulation. So they build sewers and everyone has to pay in to maintenance and have water usage monitored...

The rural mindset: Ill do what I need to for me. What I do is none of your business. Don't tell me how much water I can use, its my well.

The urban mindset: We all have to obey the rules on wells/septic systems so we aren't drinking each others shit. I will accept this rule and comply with it, and give up control of my water supply to the community.

The viewpoints are somewhat related to a sense of self reliance vs community cooperation, and how much your actions impact your neighbors.

I think thats part of how the different mindsets establish... but they extend much beyond basic practical matters.

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/ShackbaggeredSluber]

Well yes, this is why republicans seem to think all relationships are transactional. It’s a selfish perspective that breeds a weird kind of altruism. You can see it in their anti lgbt stances too. Why would you cut off your gay child just for being gay?

Because they owe you grandchildren. Their life was ultimately a tool to achieve that so they don’t get to make choices for their own happiness.

[u/High-Nomad → u/ImprovementPutrid441]

Having a strong tribe or family isn’t a personal advantage?

[u/ImprovementPutrid441 → u/High-Nomad]

Not necessarily no. Because we are talking about unearned advantages, not a meritocracy. If you give your brother a job sailing ships because he’s your brother, how many is he allowed to lose before you hire somebody else?

Would you let him tank the company?

“Unfortunately, less than one- third of family-owned businesses survive the transition from the first generation of ownership to the second - and only 13 percent of family businesses remain in the family over 60 years.”

https://www.salientwpg.com/blog/10-pitfalls-to-avoid-with-succession-of-a-family-run-business

[u/Jaded_Hold_1342 → u/No-Carrot4267]

Well, yes, in a relative sense.

Both Liberals and Conservatives priroitize themselves an people close to them. Both are 'selfish' to some degree. the differece is how they choose to distribute their sense of moral duty.

Liberals extend a relatively higher amount of moral concern to groups they are not close to, but still prioritize themselves higher than other groups.

So the question is... "Is there a correct amount of selfishness (or in-group preference)? Whats too much, whats too little?"

[u/Longster_dude → u/Jaded_Hold_1342]

Well stated.