I have a theory.

[InquilineKea]

<p>Since one thing is, motives are often based on influences that are out of one’s control (for example, all sex offenders and criminals are only that way due to genetic and environmental influences).. SOME people DO believe that they are bad because of their MOTIVES. SOME people DO believe that they are intrinsically bad because they were born that way. If you believe that they are bad due to MOTIVES, however, this will be problematic when you consider that their motives are motivated by genetic and environmental influences. If you believe that they are intrinsically bad because they were born that way, then you won’t face an issue when we start identifying particular genes and neuroprocesses to particular undesirable behaviors. But then you aren’t a liberal in that sense of the term (which is what a lot of paleoconservatives thought of people with undesirable behaviors - though this included social Darwinists as well - social Darwinists don’t seem to conveniently fit into any political category)</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>CORRECTION:</p>

<p><a href=“neo-conservatives%20are%20more%20likely%20to%20believe%20that%20poverty%20and%20unemployment%20are%20due%20to%20lack%20of%20work%20ethic%20or%20inherent%20personality%20deficiencies”>quote</a>.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Neoconservatives are more likely to believe that poverty and unemployment are due to FACTORS WITHIN ONE’S CONTROL. Paleoconservatives are more likely to believe that poverty and unemployment are due to factors OUTSIDE OF ONE’S CONTROL, but they are simultaneously unlikely to be sympathetic to helping those who are poor/unlucky due to those factors outside of one’s control.</p>

<p>It’s just that in 21st century American politics, most people believe that the poor/unlucky should be aided (which is a sharp turn from many centuries in the past - when they believed that the poor/unlucky ones were born that way and deserved to be that way). The key question is WHY - and this is where the disagreement begins (and where the different solutions also begin - the different solutions contingent on one’s conception of what CAUSES inequality).</p>

<p>==</p>

<p>Correction 2:

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>Sorry, I wasn’t being objective here, this is an issue I feel somewhat passionate about (since I’m really irked by people who deny the biological basis of motivation). Also Adderall may not necessarily be the best option - as it’s possible that science will discover new motivational drugs that aren’t as prone to abuse as Adderall is. The main point remains: motivation is hugely affected by neurotransmitters (attitudes do help, but attitudes are often useless when one is hopelessly distractible or lazy due to neurotransmitter imbalance - and yes, not everyone can help themselves through willpower)</p>