During my summer before my Junior Year in high school, while attending a summer program at MIT, I was recognized with a technical writing award for an essay I wrote about three possible rationales for an ethical argument. One was utilitarianism, the other two were justice and the rights of Man. Without getting into a lengthy blog on the subject (and, sheepishly, because today I can hardly remember what i had written about) I simply wanted to propose the following nuggets for thought:
1. Political liberals tend to justify their positions based on social "justice" arguments.
2. Political conservatives and libertarians tend to base their positions on "rights of Man" arguments
3. Americans, within the last two centuries, have drifted toward a Pragmatism branching out from secular humanist influence. Politicians from both sides of the spectrum tend to mix in a utilitarian argument (for the greater good of all) to trump the other side.
I am for a justice argument, as long as they are based in court decisions and not socialistic in nature. Social justice can actually be a strong opponent of individual civil rights. Guess this explains why i am conservative in my political leanings. Utilitarian arguments do not move me unless the will of an infinite God is clearly the "majority" in any calculation of a "greater good".
God clearly desires love. People exhibiting free expressions of charity, love and services. The corruption of a free systems with oppressive mandates that those who have honestly achieved wealth through the production of value are legally required to have their property distributed to others who didn't is the oppressive form of slavery where a government is given a mantle to determine rights. But I hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable rights. A government cannot endow rights based on the color of skin or the amount or lack thereof of a person's wealth. A government cannot endow rights at all.
The proper "utility" of a government is to "wield the sword" (authority to use force) to protect the rights endowed to individuals by our Creator and to mete out justice when (an) individual(s) infringes upon the rights of (an)other individual(s).
To continually think of individuals in terms of social groups (African Americans, women, Hispanics, etc) is the enemy of civil rights. Historically, the major advances in civil rights in the US(abolition of slavery, women suffrage, desegregation, pro-life) have come from the policies and stances of the Republican party, who simply promoted the civil rights of all individuals, regardless of an artificial social grouping.
