Humanitarianism and Conservatism Compatibility [insert ‘gasp’]
As far as humanitarianism is concerned, it is defined in ethics as “a. [a] doctrine that humanity’s obligations are concerned wholly with the welfare of the human race … [and] b. [a] doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid” (http://dictionary.com). I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I believe the obligations of humanity are based solely on the welfare of the human race; I certainly don’t subscribe to the fact that humankind can ever become perfect, especially without divine aid. Consequently, I also disagree with the theological definition which defines it as “the doctrine that Jesus Christ [only] possessed a human nature” (http://dictionary.com). Jesus Christ was resurrected, and the last time I checked, humans don’t rise from the dead. I do, however, want to focus on humanity’s obligations and how they tie into the welfare of the human race.
Most will argue that humanitarianism and conservatism are incompatible; some will go as far as saying that they contradict one another. Most liberals will try to convince you that conservatives are inhumane based on torturing potential terrorist suspects and rejecting federal social welfare programs, yet liberals want to make killing babies legal, advocate for the free market principle when it comes to heroine, marijuana, and cocaine, and glamorize the destruction of the definition of marriage, but I digress. I must note that although I do not fully subscribe to the ideas under the doctrines of humanitarianism, I do defend all conservative politics both economically and socially. Conservatism lends its hand generously to the humanistic perspective through charity. While liberals love to claim peace, love, and happiness, it is conservatives that donate, not only their possessions, but their time and energy in aiding society by following the good neighbor approach. Liberals depend on the social welfare programs of the federal government that spend other people’s money (American taxpayer dollars) to aid society and automatically claim the entitlement (pun intended) rights to humanitarianism. Nicholas D. Kristof, OP-ED columnist for the New York Times, did some research back in December of 2008 on the subject matter and titled his article “Bleeding Heart Tightwads.” Now, who might Mr. Kristof be speaking of? (If you replied conservatives, you get an “L” for liberal). Only liberals are surprised that their own party is less charitable than conservatives, see source for the full article.
Update: I was using StumbleUpon! (http://stumbleupon.com) today and came across this visual guide to giving entitled “Charity: Who Cares?” courtesy of MintLife Blog (http://mint.com); this wonderful visual guide breaks down the basics of charity.
Check it out: http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/charity-who-cares/
(Source: The New York Times)
