Great link. Thank you!

I think you misunderstood the use of the word "looter" here.

I think that means, just via example in his books. Yes, I know that one, quite well.

Yes this behavior is fundamental to the philosophy that there are no objective standards or even reality. Accordingly all is opinion or a differing narrative with one no better than another. Winning is what is important and they feel righteous about whatever they do.

The cure is a standard of behavior
See:: http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...
and an end to a corrupted Political System that is a moral hazard into which every official falls and which attracts the already corrupt. http://www.TheSocietyProject.org

It is called MOB mentality and actually has been explained in psychology. I was an MP and we were taught in times of riots and such people get caught up in the moment and are not necessary like that normally. However it is my opinion that SOME of them are being manipulated and or PAID TO RIOT mrpesident2016.com

I learned, clear back in 1st Grade, that two wrongs don't make a right. Simple enough.

"1984"

Did Orwell do this in an argument, or just via example in his books?

I don't think I ever said that. Agree.

Orwell already constructed this thesis. Remember, 2+2 is not necessarily 4; it is whatever the one in power wants it to be. That's All, Folks!

Dr.
you are wrong about conservatives not having a complete lack of guilt. they do and we know that by the fact that all of the congress IS birds of a feather.

Looters are unethical. If you choose to loot the looters you create a problem for yourself; if the government looters find out you can go to jail, whereas when we catch the looters which happens all the time they get the don't go to jail card. If one can get-a-way with looting the looters go for it.

Politicos just love to get down in the mud. For some it is always the end justifies the means and it is fine as long as they have good intentions (at least in their mind). Undoubtedly their thought process goes no deeper than that. Decency and integrity have no place in the cesspool.
O tempora o mores!

Need...need to make sense of everyone else's voices when ancient societies built great cities and everyone was living on top of one another helped to bring about conscious awareness, conscious introspection, examining behaviors and needing some truths to live by...The Ten Comandments comes to mind here...even though it was thought that the voice was from outside one's self, it was obvious it was the subconsciously collect thoughts that brought this to the brain...even still, most needed that external fear of consequence to abide by it, but once the voice got weak or just plain stopped...they unknowingly went back to the temptations of the brain...it's been a long hard journey and you might observe, many, still today, have not made the transition into introspective self rule. (conscience).

Need seems son much larger and tangible an effect.

Lack of need, being coddled?...maybe, but I would first look at a lot of nutritional and prescriptive drug practices, then education then see if the Hovering parents paradigm figured in.
I also would consider cosmic, earthly and solar electromagnetic cycles too...these things do play upon the brain, after all, it is electric in nature.

Regarding your second paragraph, would you attribute any of the cause of this renaissance of bicameral thought to lack of need (living to easy a life) and/or lack of natural selection?

I like the hypothesis that liberals see each act as disconnected from the system. This is the kind of thing I was alluding to in the last part of my note. Can you help construct and argument as to why that is so, or provide your thoughts on the examples?

Unethical behavior seems a disease of the political class, whether liberal or conservative. Conservatives can be accused of hypocrisy, since their public statements are usually laden with pious lectures about morality. Liberals, on the other hand, seem to have an easier time pulling these shenanigans with a complete lack of guilt, since their morality (such as it is) is strictly relativistic. Liberals consider each event as isolated and unique, so that what might be viewed as an immoral or unethical act by a conservative on a universal basis may be viewed as righteous and justifiable by a liberal due to the circumstances involved.

In my learned opinion...No, they are not more conscious...in fact, they are less conscious or are not conscious at all...most I would think fall into this category.
Is it possible that a weak, conscious person could ignore their own conscience...maybe, if they have no voice. I have been canvasing young people for the past 6 months and 80% in their mid to late teens say they have no voice, they can't even rehearse a speech in their heads without moving their lips. That's shocking!
According to Jaynes, during bicameral preconscious times, this has happened before in history during our worst of times, just prior to the flood perhaps but also during the ascension of awareness at the fall of some of the greatest civilizations (Greece and Rome)...seems to be a cycle of sorts but I have been investigating other causes of this.

To be objective, one conscious could ignore or fight the voice for ideological reasons or vengeful reasons; even for purportedly good reasons. But it's hard work, It takes a very strong willed person because it needs constant attention and that person harbors a growing self hatred as a result. I wish I could post it here, but a mentor once described an early on line discussion, back in the days of "you got mail", with such a person. He said, he had to stuff his guilt deeper and deeper, making excuses to himself and distract himself from hearing his inner voice. It was exhausting but had not yet reached the point where he couldn't take it any more...and those times do come profoundly for people like this...they end up confessing in a verbal vomit session.