<p>
</p>
<p>That’s only the liberals and conservatives of 21st century America though.</p>
<p>Recall that MANY conservative Christians used to be Calvinists, for example (Calvinists attributed everything to be predetermined - and that those who lacked work ethics or who had inherent personality deficiencies lacked them just because they weren’t judged well by God). Herein is where many paleo-conservatives differ from neo-conservatives (neo-conservatives are more likely to believe that poverty and unemployment are due to lack of work ethic or inherent personality deficiencies).</p>
<p>But those are the psychological issues. If you look at everything from the materialist standpoint, EVERYTHING is attributable to genetics and environment (especially intelligence). But the solutions one has to such issues do determine whether one is liberal or conservative or libertarian. (for the record for example, I don’t believe in free will, and I have heavily researched the neurological basins of “lack of work ethic” and distractibility - a lot of those are due to problems with the processing of the neurotransmitter dopamine). Nonetheless, I’m most sympathetic to libertarianism as incentives can act on people even in the absence of free will (but actually, both Democrats and Republicans reject biology so thoroughly that it’s pathetic, and most libertarians too). Yes inequality will result, and yes, some people are genetically disadvantaged. But equality is impossible. It’s possible that genetic engineering can actually reduce suffering (here I’m actually with James D. Watson)</p>
<p>Steven Pinker actually argued that the new religion. vs. science battles in the 21st century will arise over psychology (because we’re starting to reduce every undesirable behavior into neurochemical, genetic, and physiological routes). This raises a lot of questions. For example, if you give Adderall to the lazy (if the lazy are uncomfortable with their situations due to their intrinsic laziness, they SHOULD elect to have the option to take Adderall, because they really don’t have much control over how lazy they are), it may make the lazy a LOT more productive than they otherwise would be. I think it’s a perfectly legitimate idea. But it faces issues of abuse and misunderstanding (especially IF people become psychologically dependent on Adderall).</p>
<p>Also, for example, the BEST treatment for sex offenders BY FAR is chemical castration</p>
<p>==
A lot of it depends, for example, on whether you subscribe to the notion of “equality of opportunity” vs. “equality of outcome”. Liberals are sympathetic to the latter, conservatives to the former. The problem with the latter is that it forces a redistribution of resources (which is why people object to it). And a lot of it depends on whether you judge people to be truly equal or not (and in what ways). if you believe that everything is out of one’s control, you can still be conservative (you can just say that “well, it’s the way of life” and then attribute it to either natural selection or God’s will, either way of which will not make you a Democrat in the traditional sense).</p>
<p>You can say that “deficiencies of the will” are redeemable or you could say that they are “unredeemable” for example. </p>
<p>==
A lot of it is also based on the history of Anglo-American justice system (which judges people based on motives, not on outcomes). This is precisely what is causing a massive moral dilemma when it comes to the intersection of neurobiology/genetics and politics</p>