The Collectivist Mindset and the Organic Model of Morality

Many of us have difficulty understanding how Liberal/Progressives think, so I thought I might share a little of what I’ve learned from several years of reading what they have said and written.

First, it is important to understand that the collectivist sees society as an organism and himself/herself as the doctor.  This means that the collectivist is the one who “knows” how to diagnose social ills and prescribe the cure.  The patient (i.e. society) is assumed to be unqualified to do either.  The patient is simply assumed to be too ignorant to help and more likely to add to her own problems.

Next, the collectivist assumes they are of a higher level of intellect than the patient.  While they may acknowledge other doctors (people they consider their peers), they usually still hold an inward assumption of superiority to those other doctors.  They believe they understand and have answers for many of the social ills humanity has wrestled with and never been able to understand or resolve, therefore, they assume they have a moral responsibility to ‘save’ the patient (society) – whether the patient likes it or not.

At this point, we need to understand that this is the structure of the collectivist’s understanding of morality.  The collectivist sees himself as morally obligated to save the patient because he is smarter than the patient and knows better what is good for the patient than the patient, herself.  This is essential to understanding why collectivists seem to have a different understanding of right and wrong than those who see society as a collection of individuals rather than a single organism.  Keep this in mind as you read the next part.

Now, as the doctor, the collectivist does not see the individual cells (i.e. people) making up the body of the patient (i.e. society).  All the collectivist sees is the patient.  What’s more, because the patient is ignorant and self-destructive, the doctor doesn’t bother asking the patient what is wrong or where it hurts.  He just “goes to work.”  Therefore, if the doctor decides the body of the patient has a boil (let’s say, a person who is trying to assert their individual rights) and the collectivist decides it needs to be lanced, he simply lances the boil and thinks nothing of it.  In the mind of the collectivist, he has done a good thing: he has “healed” the patient, thus relieving her of the discomfort caused by the boil.  However, in the real world where individuals matter, that boil is a real individual, and that ‘lancing” may have taken the form of denied justice, imprisonment or even the outright killing of the individual who was simply seeking to protect their individual rights and liberty.

Now, let’s suppose that the problem is more serious.  This time, the patient (society) has what the doctor (i.e. collectivist) decides is a cancer (i.e. a group of people asserting their right to own and bear arms for self-defense).  In this case, the doctor decides that only surgery can “save” the patient, so he tries to cut out the cancer (i.e. ban guns).  However, the cancer is stubborn and keeps coming back.  Well, the doctor (collectivist) is morally bound to “save” the patient (society), so he performs even more radical surgery (i.e. collects individual weapons).  Unfortunately, this causes the cancer to grow wildly (individuals revolt), so the doctor cuts of the limb to save the patient (jails or kills those rebelling).  And that is how the collectivist thinks and operates.

Note how this works.  The collectivist is the arrogant doctor, and society is the hapless, ignorant, self-destructive patient.  Only the doctor knows how to save the patient, so the doctor is morally bound to save the patient whether she likes it or not.  The doctor then decides what is wrong with the patient without ever asking the patient what is wrong or where it hurts.  Then the doctor prescribes the “best cure,” and again, he doesn’t bother to ask the patient for her input or feedback.  If the doctor decides the cure hasn’t worked, he tries something else until he eventually arrives at the need for radical amputation.  After all, he is morally obligated to save the patient, and if that means ‘sacrificing’ a limb, well, that’s just the price the patient will have to accept for the doctor’s help and benevolence.  And that’s how millions of cells (i.e. individual people) can be amputated (i.e. murdered) and the doctor (collectivist) can still see a good and moral person when he looks in the mirror.

Now, admittedly, I have used the ultimate example, but I could just as easily have painted a similar analogy to explain wealth transfer/welfare as theft and slavery, or any other collectivist ploy to ‘cure’ his perceived social ills.  I just chose this illustration because I believe it is the easiest to picture and understand.  Once we accept that this is how the collectivist thinks, it becomes easier to understand how they can see themselves as good, moral people.

Finally, there’s one last point we need to understand here.  This tendency to view himself as society’s doctor tends to result in a form of group-think among these collectivist elitists.  At once, it accounts for why they all seem to think alike while, at the same time, they all seem to have a different ‘cure’ to society’s problems.  They all think they are doctors trying to save the patient, but they all think they are Dr. House and their peers are just their ‘team.”  As a result, they tend to diagnose different ailments and prescribe different treatments.

And there you have it: the Liberal/Progressive/Collectivist mindset in a nutshell.

15 thoughts on “The Collectivist Mindset and the Organic Model of Morality

      • And so it goes back to my initial argument that the individual is the responsible party. If an individual has morals, said individual will do the right thing, right?

        Let me put it another way. If you have a cancer, do you kill the bad cells while unintentionally killing the good cells, or do you take a different route to kill?

        • Kells,

          Ask one fo your “B translators” to explain my analogy. I think you missed it — again 😉

          (hey, I’m being nice, so don’t wig-out here, just ask Don or Augger to ‘splain for you)

      • I think we need a Kells translator…..wonder if Ken’s available….I don’t think you realise that everything I said just went completely over your head. Unfortunately, that seems to happen quite frequently here.

        You know what? I’m going to spell it out for you, myself! Kells’ translation of Kells: The collectivist is the cancer. How then does the individual treat it? As the RINO would by caving in (killing the good cells) or as the constitutionalist would by (killing only the bad cells)? Gah! Did you not take Kells 101 in school? I thought it was required!

        • Kells,

          Nope, I got it. You reversed my entire analogy, thereby throwing your mud into what I thought was clear water. Congratz! You buggered it up as well as anything Greg or SBJ could have done.

          • Um, excuse me, Mr. Smarty Pants, but your analogy is confounding! Please, please review your characters! This production is as follows:

            Good guys~
            “Individual cells” and “Patient” are to be played by one actor (AKA People and/or Society)

            Bad guys~
            “Doctor” (Collectivist)
            “Cancer” (Anti Second Amendment folks)

            Are ya with me so far? I just think that you can’t admit that my analogy makes more sense. Then again, who knows? Maybe Augger will love being thought of as a collectivist.

  1. Black, I think your analogy would have been easier digested had you written it somewhat like this:

    Now, let’s suppose that the problem is more serious. This time, the patient (society) has infected wound on his lower extremity (i.e. a group of people asserting their right to own and bear arms for self-defense). The doctor (collectivist) decides to debride the bad tissue from the wound so that it will heal (bans the guns). However, the wound becomes infected, and begins to turn gangrenous in the surgeon’s eyes which places the patient at risk for systemic infection (individuals revolt), so the doctor cuts of the limb to save the patient (jails or kills those rebelling). And that is how the collectivist thinks and operates.

    However later, pathology revealed that the tissue wasn’t gangrenous after all. A misdiagnosis of the problem. The leg just really need more blood flow which could have easily been corrected at the surgeon consulted a vascular specialist.

    In medicine, this limb is sacrificed to save the body, but the physician was working under the wrong assumption of the problem (i.e, guns do not kill people, people kill people with anything they can weaponize).

    In the collectivist society, the diagnosis never mattered in the first place (only the agenda does), and it can be best summed up like this:

    ‘The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.’

    Your, or your loved ones, are of little concern to the collectivist. You can, and will be sacrificed if the need is felt.

    • Why? You just translated for me (and did it better because you’re a saw-bones).

      Give a guy a break: you know I’m more at home using the actual philosophical terms involved. Still, it was good enough that you understood perfectly. Kells is just…well, Kells. 🙂

      • Ah hell, to be perfectly honest, I think I was cleaning it up for Kells.

        edit: Hell, I dunno anymore. All the responses got me twisted up … or this Scotch did one. I’m not sure.

        • I believe you’re brilliant.

          Off-topic now, I subscribe to this silly magazine called Prevention. I read this article on laser therapy that specifically targets the bad cancer cells. Do you know of what I speak?

          • Oncology really isn’t my thing. And honestly, I hope it never is.

            But yes, they can guide lasers to target certain types of cancers … even in the middle of your brain. 🙂

            • Augger,

              I read…well, almost ANYTHING I see that catches my attention — I just don’t always remember where I read it 😦

              Anyway, I have read that they are in the final stages of testing a process in which they infuse small amounts of gold into a patient that, for some reason, tends to concentrate in tumors. They are then able to irradiate the gold metal in the body so specifically that it burns all the cells that contain it, but nothing else. According to the article, they have COMPLETELY cured EVERY test animal they have used this on with NO side effects and no re-occurrence.

              Not sure if it was legit, but I’m pretty sure I read it in connection to some cancer institue out West. I just figure that, with so much money involved, even if it works, they are likely to try to sit on this one — especially with Obamacare depending on the new-found ability to “death panel” away the government’s social security and medicare/medicaid liability.

              (yep, cynical — but with good reason)

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.