Category: The 10 Pillars

Nature of Truth

It might seem odd that how someone thinks about truth would be something one could point to as delineating conservative thought from progressive thought, but, here we are.  It’s not necessarily the existence of truth, it’s also what constitutes objective and subjective truth. There are three areas which distinguish a conservative from a progressive when it comes to the nature of truth.  First, does truth exist and is it something we can know?  Second, what is subjective truth?  And third, what is objective truth?

Truth doesn’t exist

Occasionally, you will come across a friend who tells you, truth doesn’t exist or that truth is unknowable.  This is a progressive view of truth.  Rejecting absolute truth is called postmodernism which came about as an over reaction to the verificationism and scientism of the modern or enlightenment period.  I won’t spend a lot of time on this one because the statements, “truth doesn’t exist,” and “truth is unknowable,” are self-refuting statements.  Or as Christian apologist Greg Koukl says, it commits suicide, it kills itself.  Let me explain.  When someone says, “truth doesn’t exist,” or “truth is unknowable, “ they are making a claim that what they are saying is true.  But if we apply what they are claiming to their statement, it’s false.  It commits suicide.  

Objective and Subjective Truth

More common to the progressive view of truth is confusing objective and subjective truth.  Let’s begin at the beginning.  Truth is something that corresponds to reality.  Truth can be either objective (external) or subjective (internal).  Closely related to truth are facts.  Facts are objective, verifiable statements or information which are accurate descriptions of reality.  Facts are independent of opinion, feelings, beliefs, and interpretation.  Truth and facts can be scientific, historical, mathematical, and moral.

For example, when we explored the Nature of Authority one of the proofs offered for a higher external authority was the appearance of objective morality.  Whether you call that external entity God or a supreme being.  The chart below summarizes the difference between objective and subjective:

Objective	Subjective
Universally True: all people, all time.	Individually true
Verifiable (true or false)	Variable
Independent from personal views	Dependent on personal views
External	Internal
Observable	Experiential
Obligatory	Optional

Someone with a more progressive understanding of truth will at times attempt to make subjective truth objective, and objective truths subjective.  

Confusing objective and subjective truth 

One of the biggest tells for someone with a progressive view of truth is a tendency to try and make subjective truths objective truths.  Nowhere is this more apparent than when discussing morality.  Rather than going through a detailed review and analysis of all the different ethical and moral philosophies, we will look at the one aspect of any moral philosophy that makes or breaks it, grounding.  Grounding is identifying and justifying the ultimate foundation or basis for moral truths, obligations, or values. Grounding asks the questions; “What makes moral claims true or binding?” “Why should we follow certain ethical principles?” And “What gives them authority?”  Furthermore, grounding can either be external or internal (to mankind).  As we’ve already established and it’s agreed, for something to be objective it must be external.  The only ethical system that is definitively external is Divine Command Theory (DCT).  DCT is the understanding that all moral and ethical duties and responsibilities come from a divine source and are obligatory.  Laws require a lawmaker, and a lawmaker can only make laws within their jurisdiction.  As the Creator of the universe, making moral laws is well within God’s right and jurisdiction.

All other ethical and moral systems are considered or most likely to be internal to humans and thus, subjective.  What you will see progressive thinkers do in an attempt to make moral values objective, when they are in fact subjective, is to claim the size of the group, logic, flourishing, goodness, or practicality is what makes something good or bad.  No matter the size of a group, it’s still a group of humans and therefore internal.  If the goodness or badness of an act is based on logic and reasoning, it’s still done in a human mind and therefore internal.   If human flourishing is the basis for morality, who is it deciding what constitutes flourishing?  A human, internal again.  Hitler, the Third Reich and German people believed the elimination of Jews, Gypsies, handicapped, and homosexuals would lead to human flourishing.  If goodness is the standard, who decides what is good?  Do you see the point?  Ultimately, all other ethical systems are internal to humans and relative.  

Morality is one area progressives confuse subjective truth as objective truth, and standpoint epistemology, which is part of Critical Theory (CT) is another common example.  Standpoint epistemology is the understanding that truth can be established by someone’s location on the social intersectionality grid.  Somehow, the more oppressed someone is, their oppression gives them better access to truth and knowledge.  These stories from oppressed individuals are given objective status, while being fully subjective.  How can black men who grew up in poverty like Larry Elder, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell arrive at opposite conclusions from similar black men like Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton?  Because all experience is filtered through a human mind which is the definition of subjective.  Not even the stories any of these men may tell can be considered truly objective because they can’t get out of their own heads to see the entirety of the circumstances.  

Don’t Be Confused

Another maneuver progressives like to use when talking to conservatives about truth is changing the circumstances.  Here’s what you need to remember so you don’t get confused.  1) In any set of given circumstances there is an objective good or bad, or in the case of a moral dilemma a better or worse choice.  2) The other thing you need to remember is less evil, is always a moral good.  

Here’s an example.  Telling a lie or not telling the truth is morally wrong.  True.  What your progressive friend might do in an attempt to show moral truth is subjective or relative is ask you if lying to save someone’s life is wrong.  Of course the answer is yes, it’s okay to lie to save someone’s life, or feelings.  What they’ve done is change the circumstances to create a dilemma.  Let’s apply the two things we need to remember.  Obviously, they’ve added more context to the situation thus changing the mortal imperative.  But, if we keep in mind the moral hierarchy.  Lying is much lower on the immorality scale than murder.  If less evil is always a moral good, lying in that set of circumstances is always good.  Lying isn’t subjective or relative, it’s circumstantial.  Lying to save yourself from negative consequences is wrong, but lying to spare someone’s feelings may be okay.  Just ask any married man who’s been asked the question, “Does this dress look okay?”  

Here’s another, more complicated example.  Progressives love to claim the founding fathers of America were racist because they owned slaves and didn’t outlaw slavery from the very beginning of the United States.  In an absolute sense we all agree treating another human being as property is wrong.  When we consider the times, culture, norms, and circumstances we can understand in a much deeper way how the founding fathers approached slavery.  They knew from the beginning slavery was wrong, that’s why the phrase, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”. Including those words as the basis for the founding of our country gave us the footing to eventually end slavery in our country.  Is slavery evil, yes.  But codifying human value and dignity in our founding documents and having a long term plan to end that evil is a moral good.  Consider these facts:

• The United States was the second country in the world to outlaw the importation of slaves from Africa only 31 years after its founding,
• The United States was the fifth country to outlaw slavery in 1865
• The only country to fight a civil war to end slavery.  Over 600,000 people died to end slavery in the U.S.  

None of this makes slavery subjective or relative, all this means is we must consider the circumstances and ultimate outcomes before declaring the objectivity or lack thereof of an action.  

Let’s conclude the discussion of objective and subjective truth and facts with an illustration.  Quite often you’ll hear a progressive thinker use the story of the blind men and the elephant to illustrate the validity of “Your truth.”  In the tale, several blind men encounter an elephant for the first time and try to describe it by touching different parts of its body. One touches the trunk and says the elephant is like a snake. Another feels the leg and claims it’s like a tree. A third touches the side and insists it’s like a wall. Another grabs the tail and thinks it’s like a rope, and so on. Each man is convinced his description is correct and argues with the others, unaware that they’re all describing different aspects of the same animal.  Although this is offered as an illustration of “your truth” they fail to realize the actual moral of the story is the existence of an objective, external observer can see the actual truth.  

Understand:

• Characteristics of objective truth: Universal, verifiable, independent, external, observable, and obligatory.
• Characteristics of subjective truth: Individual, variable, dependent, internal, experiential, optional.
• Grounding is how you identify and justify the foundation for truth, ethics, obligations and values.
• Grounding can either be external or internal
• The statement, “truth doesn’t exist.” Is self-refuting, and commits suicide.  When you apply the claim to itself, the claim is false.
• Different circumstances may dictate the objectivity of truth.  That doesn’t mean the truth is subjective, it means it’s circumstantial.  
• Less evil is always a moral good. 

Articulate (questions for your progressive friends):

• Do you know the difference between objective and subjective truth?
• If truth doesn’t exist or is unknowable, then how do I know if that statement is true?
• How can I independently verify that?
• If we can trace the foundation of a moral truth back to a human mind, doesn’t that make it subjective?
• If morality is subjective, why am I obligated to follow it?
• Why should we give more credibility to one human’s experience over another’s?
• Is it a consensus or majority that makes something right or wrong?

Defend (by asking questions):

• Wouldn’t it be better to have objective truth as the basis for moral and ethical beliefs?
• Doesn’t using objective truth as the foundation for beliefs make more sense?
• Can you see how basing truth on popularity, power, or practicality leads to abuse?

The first pillar of political thought is the most defining of all the pillars.  Who’s in charge?  The Nature of Authority.  

As I studied the principles of conservatism and progressivism it wasn’t hard to draw out what each worldview believed and compare and contrast the two.  It wasn’t until I began putting those differing beliefs into a hierarchy that it all started to make sense.  

Very quickly it became obvious that the most defining presupposition of political thinking was The Nature of Authority.  Who is the ultimate authority?  There are really only two options 1) God, or 2) Man.  This is a watershed issue because it will impact all the other pillars, if one is consistent in their thinking.  The nature of authority, God or Man, is like the continental divide when it comes to one’s political leanings.  If a drop of water falls on the left side of the divide it runs into the Pacific, and if it falls on the right it runs into the Atlantic.  If you believe ultimate authority resides in God you should, and I say should, hold to certain beliefs about reality.  If on the other hand you believe ultimate authority is in the realm of man you should hold a very different set of beliefs about reality.

This isn’t necessarily a Theist versus Atheist thing. It’s a who’s in charge thing.  If you don’t believe God exists then it’s hard to give God the ultimate authority, but not impossible.  It’s just more complicated.  William Dembski, for example, is an atheist, but is squarely on the side of intelligent design as the best explanation for the universe and reality we see.  He acknowledges a designing intellect but stops short of calling it God.  Douglas Murray is another atheist, who can’t conclude God exists, but does recognize there is an authority external to and above man.  Both of these men, although atheists, would be in the same camp as those of us who believe God is the ultimate authority, but manage to do it without invoking God.  

Likewise, someone can believe in God, but give ultimate authority to man.  The best example I can point to are progressive Christians.  The adjective “progressive” is the first and most obvious clue.  I think most progressive Christians believe in God, but when push comes to shove, ultimate authority is with man.  We are in charge.  We determine our destiny.  We create reality.  

The first question you need to ask yourself when you have a political disagreement is, “Who is this person giving ultimate authority to?  God or Man?”

But Who’s Right?

The next question we need to answer regarding this pillar is, who’s right?  I would love to be able to tell you God without question exists and is the ultimate authority.  But I can’t.  What I can say, and will explain, is that God is the best explanation for all reality and therefore is the ultimate authority in the universe.  Either God did it, or everything is the result of natural processes.  Those are the only two real choices.  Regardless of where you or someone else falls on the issue of authority there are 5 features of reality that need to be explained to determine ultimate authority, 1) the beginning of the universe, 2) the fine tuning of the universe, 3) life, 4) human consciousness and intelligence, and 5) the appearance of objective morality.  

 Before I go into any arguments for God’s authority, a couple of notes.  First, this is not going to be a comprehensive treatment of the questions.  It will be sufficient to make a reasonable person at least consider God as the ultimate authority and give you some questions you can ask someone who is genuinely interested.  Second, all I’m trying to accomplish with the below explanations is making God a more reasonable conclusion than the other possibilities.  

1. Beginning of the universe:  William Lane Craig has developed what he calls the Kalam Cosmological argument (KCA).  It goes like this: 1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause, 2) The universe began to exist, and therefore 3) The universe has a cause.  A simple deductive argument.  Now the question becomes, what is that cause?  We really have two choices.  1) an immaterial, spaceless, timeless, all powerful, all knowing, personal being, which we call God, or 2) Nature.  But a couple of issues arise with the latter.  First, have you ever seen something create itself?  All scientists agree, all space, time and matter began to exist around 14 billion years ago.  There was nothing.  Not a thing, nada, universal negation.  So how could nature or matter create itself?  It’s not magic, because at least with magic you have a magician and a hat. 

On the other hand, even if the idea of God as a being seems implausible, at least the God as described earlier is adequate to the task of creating the universe from nothing. 

Questions for consideration:  

1. Has anyone ever seen something created from nothing? (God is not nothing and He wasn’t created by definition)
2. How could nature or matter create itself?
3. The attributes of God are typically a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, all knowing, personal being.  Wouldn’t a being like that be more than capable of creating our universe? 
4. God or nature?  Which explanation seems more reasonable? 

2) The fine tuning of the universe:  

Our universe is exquisitely fine tuned for intelligent life.  One conservative calculation puts the chance of our fine tuned universe to be 1 chance in 10^120th power.  There are only 10^89 elemental particles in the universe.  You would have a better chance picking a specific single particle from the entire universe than having a universe fine tuned for life. It’s not like the lottery where someone is going to win.  It’s like you winning a 1 number lottery with 10^120th balls.  

Again, there are only 2 real choices: 1) Design, or 2) Chance.  Either someone or something rigged the lottery for us to win or we just got truly unbelievably lucky.  Some will try to throw in a third option, the multiverse, but other than the movies, there is no evidence for that explanation.  So, given the astronomical chances of a fine tuned universe, which is more reasonable, design or chance? 

Questions for consideration:

1. Do you know what the chances of a life permitting universe are?
2. How do you explain our incredible, our unbelievable chances?
3. Wouldn’t an all-powerful, all-knowing, personal God be able to rig the game for a life permitting universe?
4. Which seems more likely, God or Chance?

3) Life:  

As living organisms we take this one for granted, but the chances of life forming without help are similar to our fine tuned universe.  Douglas Axe applied probability theory to the formation of a single functional protein and calculated it to be 1 in 10^164.  The main criticism of his calculations is that evolution can improve those odds.  Do you see the problem with that critique?  Evolution, by definition, requires life for the theory to work.  Before life can even be possible you need as many as 20 different functional proteins.  Uh oh!  Furthermore, James Tour, a highly esteemed molecular biologist, has challenged origin of life researchers.  He will give them all the necessary matter needed to make a cell and has wagered, they still won’t be able to create a living cell.  That’s because life requires information, lots of it, and very specific information.  Complex Specified Information (CSI).  Complex meaning it isn’t random.  Specified means it can be read, interpreted, and instructive.  A single strand of human DNA contains 800 megabytes of data and there or about 3,000 trillion strands of DNA in the human body.  And, it’s not random information.  The information encoded in DNA builds functional proteins, turns on and off certain processes throughout our lives.  But wait, there’s more.  There is also epigenetic information.  As I understand it (Stephen C. Meyer forgive me if I’m wrong) epigenetic information is a layer of regulatory information beyond the DNA sequence. It is a type of information that regulates the timing and expression of the DNA.  

Questions for consideration:

1. Evolution may account for the survival of the species , but how do you account for the arrival of the species?  
2. Where did all the information for living organisms come from?  
3. Where do we always see information coming from?  (A mind)
4. Considering all the components and information required for life, which is a better explanation for life, God or Nature?

4) Human Consciousness and Intellect: 

It’s ironic that we rarely use our consciousness and intellect to contemplate our consciousness and intellect.  Let’s do that now.  Fossil evidence shows us modern humans showed up around 300,000 years ago, but the split with other hominem species could be as long as 500,000 to 600,000 years ago.  Yet, complex culture, art and language can only be traced back to between 50,000 to 100,000 years ago.  What was it that gave rise to the unique creatures we are, what makes us human?  First, consciousness.  It is the ability to self-reflect, to feel emotion, to think, to perceive, to interpret sensory data and turn it into information.  Second, intellect.  The ability to solve problems, think abstractly, learn, process, see patterns.  It works in conjunction with our consciousness to create art, write, and speak.  

This is not the brain.  Our minds (consciousness and intellect) and brains work together, but are separate and different things.  The brain is the material thing, and the mind is an immaterial thing.  Our brain has a physical location, it has dimensions, weight and is subject to chemical processes.  Our mind doesn’t have a physical location and has no dimensions.  It is immaterial.  Think about your first memory as a child.  It takes up no space in your brain, but your brain reacts to the memory with electro-chemical changes.  When you stop thinking about that memory it goes away, not forever, but it vanishes.  Where did it go, where did it come from?  

Neuroscientists are maybe the best qualified people to comment on the distinction between the brain and the mind.  Dr. Wilder Penfield started his surgical career as materialist but after thousands of surgeries he concluded the mind was an immaterial thing separate from the brain.  During his surgeries his patients were often awake and he found with the proper stimulation he could make arms move, he could make them feel physical sensation, he could even elicit memories.  However, he could never stimulate abstract thinking, he could never make a patient believe something they knew wasn’t true.  Although he could operate on the physical brain, he could never get to the immaterial mind.  

So the question becomes, how did this immaterial mind arise in humans?  Again, have we ever seen material objects create an immaterial thing?  What would be capable of creating something that complex, which is immaterial.  Seems to me only an immaterial, all knowing and all powerful being could do something like that.

Questions to consider:

1. The human body plan has been around a lot longer than the human mind.  If humans are just matter, why did it take so long for the mind to become apparent?
2. If the mind is a material thing, where are your thoughts, your memories, your emotions?
3. Has anyone, anywhere ever seen matter, create something immaterial?  
4. Isn’t it more plausible that an immaterial, all-powerful and all-knowing being created the mind than some unknown, unidentified material process?  

5) Objective Morality:

I think it’s safe to say we all agree the world isn’t how it’s supposed to be.  Something, or a lot of something’s are wrong with the world and other people (it’s never us).  Where do we get this sense that something’s wrong?  

We are once again, and for the last time are going to try and answer one of life’s big questions, where do we get this sense of right and wrong?  Unlike the other features of reality needing to be explained, this one has a multitude of explanations.  Some are good, some are bad.  Some say it’s all social convention.  Some say it’s evolution.  Some say it’s written on our hearts.  

Unlike the other features of reality we aren’t going to be able to solve the appearance of objective morality using probability, we are going to need to employ logic and reason.  First, it will be useful to understand the difference between objective and subjective.  Objective facts are independent of, or external to the mind.  Subjective facts are dependent on, or taking place in a person’s mind.  Outside versus inside.  External versus internal.  So when I write about objective morality, I’m writing about a morality whose source is external to humans.  Its source isn’t from the human mind or minds.  For example, the unjustified taking of an innocent human life is wrong.  We don’t need to be taught that, we all know it.  It was wrong from the beginning of time and it applies to everyone that has ever lived.  Those are the features of objective morality.  Timeless, universal, external, and we are obligated to follow.  We are going to have a much longer discussion on this topic in the next pillar-The Nature of Truth, but for now we’ll confine our discussion to just morality.

So, what about the other options some have floated like social contract, human flourishing, or evolution?  Here’s a couple of things to think about.  If a majority of a society is all it takes to create morality then all social progress is impossible.  If it’s the opinion of the majority that creates what’s good and bad then Dr. King and Rosa Parks were morally wrong to engage in civil rights protests.  After all, a majority of Americans believed European ethnic groups were superior to all others.  Their internal, subjective beliefs would be all that’s necessary for segregation to be considered “good”.  

Other issues like slavery and the Holocaust wouldn’t be considered wrong because a majority of society subjectively felt they were acceptable or good.  Slavery and segregation didn’t suddenly become wrong because a majority of people were convinced they were wrong.  They were wrong from the beginning and we only believed otherwise because of hard hearts and selfishness.  Those things are objectively wrong.  

Evolution is also offered as a way to achieve objective morality, but it fails too.  If right and wrong, good and bad are byproducts of the evolutionary process then how do we hold someone accountable for wrongdoing?  After all they just evolved with a different set of moral values and beliefs.  It’s not their fault.  That’s just ridiculous. 

For moral laws to exist there must be a moral law maker.  A law maker that has the proper nature, authority and knowledge to make those laws…God.  William Lane Craig to the rescue again with a very simple, yet powerful argument for God from the existence of objective moral values and duties.  1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist, 2) Objective moral values and duties do exist, therefore 3) God exists.

Questions to consider:

1. We all agree that certain things are wrong with the world.  Why do you think there is such widespread agreement on those things?
2. If you think evolution explains objective moral values and duties, could we have ever evolved in a way that rape or murder were okay?  Why not?
3. If moral values and duties are based on human flourishing, who decides what “flourishing” means?  And why human flourishing and not planetary flourishing?  Who says what’s good and bad for humans?  Hitler thought humans would flourish by exterminating Jews, Gypsies, and the handicapped.  Using that explanation why was Hitler wrong?
4. If widespread agreement on moral values and duties is the source of objective morality then wouldn’t things like the abolition movement and the civil rights movement be considered wrong?  Or are slavery and segregation always wrong and it was us who had it wrong?
5. Doesn’t it make more sense that there exists a being who is perfectly moral by nature, and who has the authority and knowledge as the source for objective morality?

This is a cumulative case for the existence of God.  By themselves one might be able to resist or ignore the individual arguments.  But when taken together it seems to me there is a pretty good case that God exists.  And if God exists and created the universe and all it contains it seems to me God has the authority and is the authority we should all be looking to for instruction on how to best organize our lives and our world.

If you read the welcome post (and I hope you did) you have some idea of what this site is dedicated to and why I’m doing it.  As I began taking in the wisdom of the thinkers I listed in the welcome post I was able to slowly, and bit by bit assemble something I think has great explanatory power.  Probably the two biggest influences of what you’ll see below are Russel Kirk’s 10 principles of conservatism, and Thomas Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed, and Conflict of Visions.  

The output of my years of dabbling is what I’m calling “The 10 Pillars of Political Thought.”  I don’t see anything original or enlightening about the 10 pillars, that wasn’t my intent.  My intent was to organize, categorize and put into a hierarchy the thoughts of the many great thinkers I’d been reading and listening to.  Understanding the presuppositions of the conservative and progressive mind has been a huge leap for me in being able to process events, understand ideas contrary to mine, and stay consistent in a rapidly changing world.  In short, Understand, Articulate, and Defend.  

You’ll notice right off the bat, I don’t use the label “Liberal.”  In the strictest sense, what we call liberals today are not truly liberals. Instead I use the term progressive.  I think it’s much more accurate and descriptive of the actual mind of the people with those beliefs.  I also want to make sure we are all on the same page with the term conservative.  Too often the conservative label is associated with a mindset that wants to turn back time.  Also the label is viewed by progressives to mean “benighted” as Sowell puts it, which is a fancy way of saying stupid.  In fact, John Stuart Mill wrote, “…conservatives are the part of stupid people.”  A much more constructive way to view the distinction between the two political views is Conservation and Innovation.  Conservation of the belief, norms, practices, values, and behaviors that lead to human flourishing.  Innovation (progression) of all those same things to take humanity to its highest attainable state.  In the table below, you’ll see how this plays out.  

Without further delay here are the 10 Pillars of Political Thought:

Pillar	Conservative	Progressive
Nature of authority	God is sovereign	Man/ The Individual is sovereign
Nature of Truth (moral and empirical)	Objective, universal, timeless, external to man.	Subjective, and evolving.
Nature of Man (value, and condition)	Humans are intrinsically and immeasurably valuable, and are sinful by nature. Human nature is fixed, and constrained.  Man has agency, free will.  Image bearers of god.	Value is based on contribution and function(instrumental value) and humans are naturally good, but learn to be sinful. Human nature is malleable and unconstrained.  Man is primarily shaped by his nurture or environment.  Highly Darwinian.
Nature of Rights	Rights are God-given, inalienable, and unchanging.  1) exist in the absence of government, 2) inalienable they can’t be given or taken by another, 3) are universal. Natural rights	Rights originate from individual dignity, and civil authority for codification and enforcement.   Positive rights
Nature of Knowledge	The only knowledge of consequence is if it adds value to a given endeavor.  Consequential Knowledge.  Diffused throughout society.	The value of knowledge is based on the credentials of the academic expressing it.  Academic Knowledge. Concentrated within academic circles creating surrogate decision makers, the Omnicompetent.
Nature of Government	To secure natural rights and promote justice. Relies on the right system and principles to work.  Bottom up: from the people	To make things right.  To promote equality.  Relies on the right person to work.   Top down: from the government
Nature of Wealth	Wealth is created and the result of agency.	Wealth is a zero sum game and is evil.
Nature of Change	Prudent, Cautious, calculated, understands the principles of unintended consequences and opportunity cost.  Change involves trade offs.  Not averse to change, but change must represent improvement.  The present is indebted to the past.	Solutions oriented, of a singular focus, emotive, impulsive approach to change.  Favors radical, utopian solutions for enduring social problems.  Willing to tear it all down to solve a perceived problem. The present owes nothing to the past.
Nature of Justice	To give one their due, retributive, reformative and restorative for the victim and perpetrator alike.  It is objective, and applicable to all.	To ameliorate inequality, restorative for the individual, and reformative for society.  Application is dependent on one’s group membership.
Nature of society	Based on family, and church	Based on collective identity and government.
Nature of Association	Free and based on beliefs, values, and behaviors	Involuntary, and based on intersectional identity.