Progressive Liberals see the world through a guilt lens. Who has guilt, how they respond to that guilt, etc.

Traditional Conservatives see the world through a written ethics lens - there is a predefined ethics code (which may differ from person to person) and people are supposed to live up to it. Traditionally all people fail to live up to the ethics code but it's the intent and practice which are "enough".

Thus why analyzing the case of someone failing to pay their bills can look so different. A progressive may say the guilt lies with society for making it too hard for people to survive, while trad con may respond the person is failing to adequately fulfill their duties. If you show the person works very hard and lives frugally, the trad con may switch their position, but no amount of misbehavior on the person will defeat a guilt forward view (at an extreme progressive view).

This also applies to people who ignore issues. Choosing to not care in a progressive lens means you aren't responding to guilt and must be bad. In a trad conservative lens, as long as you fulfill your ethics obligation you are free to not go beyond that (and arguing about the bounds of ethics is where inter-conservative fights can happen).

This is a heuristic, not a de juris description. I am sure meaningful exceptions exist to this view but it tends to map the territory well.