An anthropological dilemma repeated here at DU: [View all]

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

Often, one is told that Conservatives see man as inherently flawed, "fallen," as it were. As Madison famously said in Federalist 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Conservatives frequently argue that private property, rights of the individual as a whole is not given by the government but is protected by it because man is essentially selfish, violent, predatory.

One is then often told that Progressives see man as inherently good and that they system is bad and breeds the striving, competitiveness, and selfishness that Conservatives see. If we could just construct a system which minimizes or even negates said selfishness, then man could be what he naturally is--Good!

So here is the dilemma I see on this board repeatedly. I often see here at DU a very Conservative approach to anthropology--i.e., the human is competitive and brutish. I see a despair at man writ-large. It presents the Progressive here, then, with an elitist dilemma--the truly enlightened (either intellectually or spiritually) ought to step in and manage the unenlightened--i.e., the brutish--masses. But this seems entirely counter to Progressivism, which desires to bring everyone up. Dilemma X2: everyone believes himself/herself to be the Enlightened one, but this is the very definition of selfishness--an egoism that sees the world only on one's terms. Is this desire an affirmation of the Conservative principle.

So, I guess 2 questions: 1) do we accept this common distinction between conservatives and progressives with regard to anthropology? What is an alternative? 2) man--naturally selfish and in need of a government to protect us from ourselves; man--naturally good, who needs government to set up a system so we can flourish?

Do we abandon such things and go with consequentialist arguments (see wiki if you don't know what this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialist), or do we appeal to a deontological argument (again, wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological)? If it's deontological, then on what do we base this?

Anyway . . .