[RD] Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations test

[Synobun]

A plethora of left-liberals. Why am I not surprised.
I'll see if I join the crowd if I can find some time.

It's not surprising when the test marks conservative and libertarian far more strictly than it does leftism. Conservative in particular requires some fairly pro-collectivism answers while libertarian requires flouting of the social contract (based on the make-up of the test).

 

[warpus]

I think you're supposed to vote based on whatever impression comes into your head. For instance, the kid who was given money to share with his sibling - a pro-authority person might feel like he is older and therefore more responsible (he was entrusted with the decision, after all).

Yeah, but that depends on the situation. If the sibling is in a rough spot and the parents have been playing favourites with the kids, then maybe the moral thing to do is to split the money 50/50. If that sibling happens to be hurting and in need of cash, maybe the moral thing to do is to give all the money to the sibling. Maybe they're rich? Then it doesn't matter so much.

There's so many scenarios, the only answer I can give is "neutral". The situation described is not specific enough for me to be able to say: "This is how I always feel about this situation in terms of the involved morality". I will feel different depending on the context, so I can't answer.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I have the same problem with these tests that warpus reports. In the case of this test, it manifested itself in my voting one click toward unacceptable for many of the questions. There's something bad in most of the scenarios, so I couldn't give a positive OK to most. There's something really bad in some of them, and for those I could comfortably say altogether not acceptable. But mostly I was like: This is wrong, but it's something the two of you need to work out between the two of you.

 

[Tristan_C]

I really recommend his lectures and his book. It will give you an insight. Different people literally have different moral senses, which is why we're arguing.

I cannot see color, which would explain why I would prefer Van Gogh different from what you would prefer. It's like one person with a cold arguing with a non sick person which chili sauce was tastier. Different senses.

I also think people could benefit from reading his work. I've yet to read an accurate word about conservatives written by a liberal on this forum, but Haidt, who is liberal, is extremely accurate. He knows things.

Regarding the moral foundations, left-liberals are shown to value care (aiding those in trouble and nurturing) and fairness (economic and social justice), and less loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt says that while liberalism has always been around in this sense, western civilization has fostered this narrow foundation to an unprecedented extent... in his words, literally WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic.

The liberty foundation was spun-off at a later time in Haidt's project. This foundation draws the essential distinction between liberals and libertarians, who do not agree with the social obligations implied by care and fairness and generally detest liberals. They are also a distinctive western development.

Conservatives are shown to value all the foundations equally. Regarding the conservative foundations, they can seem irrational to liberals. One needs to consider evolution and the enduring strength a balanced moral foundation can impart to a society. Haidt argues that, in the wake of Nazism, group-level selection has been wrongfully discarded from evolutionary theory. He argues that evolution has, in all likelihood, sped up during the course of human history. There is intense feedback between things like nations, religion, and technology, with DNA.

 

[Gori the Grey]

One needs to consider . . . the enduring strength a balanced moral foundation can impart to a society.

Whose morals, though, is what (authority-undervaluing) liberals ask.

Another good book to read in this context (though it's a slog) is Fawcett's Liberalism. He takes the long historical view of liberalism and isolates four strands in it. The strongest part of the book is when he indicates ways in which those four strands are at odds with one another. He'd tell you that one of the reasons liberalism has become acronymically WEIRD is that an openness to progress is one of the four defining elements. (Won't show up within a moral schema).

So, a second thing I'm liking about Haidt's schema, is that if it lets both El Mac and Tristan characterize their value systems, it could conceivably provide a way of talking across the rift that El Mac describes:

Different people literally have different moral senses, which is why we're arguing.

I cannot see color, which would explain why I would prefer Van Gogh different from what you would prefer. It's like one person with a cold arguing with a non sick person which chili sauce was tastier. Different senses.

which is the story of our nation for these howevermany years.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Result: Your Moral Foundations Are:

• Your scores:

• Care 100%

• Loyalty 33%

• Fairness 81%

• Authority 28%

• Purity 39%

• Liberty 50%

Your strongest moral foundation is Care.

Your morality is closest to that of a Left-Liberal.


Nothing terribly surprising there.

 

[Synobun]

You and I are two peas in a pod, Timothy.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I have no idea how I got so high on authority and purity, but so low on liberty .

I'm gonna take a wild guess that to reach zero on purity you'd have to rate the uncle having a blow up doll custom made to look like his niece as full on brilliant.

You and I are two peas in a pod, Timothy.

I'm not terribly surprised by that either.

 

[Kaitzilla]

I also think people could benefit from reading his work. I've yet to read an accurate word about conservatives written by a liberal on this forum, but Haidt, who is liberal, is extremely accurate. He knows things.

Regarding the moral foundations, left-liberals are shown to value care (aiding those in trouble and nurturing) and fairness (economic and social justice), and less loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt says that while liberalism has always been around in this sense, western civilization has fostered this narrow foundation to an unprecedented extent... in his words, literally WEIRD: Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic.

The liberty foundation was spun-off at a later time in Haidt's project. This foundation draws the essential distinction between liberals and libertarians, who do not agree with the social obligations implied by care and fairness and generally detest liberals. They are also a distinctive western development.

Conservatives are shown to value all the foundations equally. Regarding the conservative foundations, they can seem irrational to liberals. One needs to consider evolution and the enduring strength a balanced moral foundation can impart to a society. Haidt argues that, in the wake of Nazism, group-level selection has been wrongfully discarded from evolutionary theory. He argues that evolution has, in all likelihood, sped up during the course of human history. There is intense feedback between things like nations, religion, and technology, with DNA.

View attachment 513884

Haha Liberty Conservatives


The lack of details on the questions really bring out the foremost moral value.
Not enough info to make an intelligent choice, so gotta go with gut feeling.


Wonder if there are any Liberty Left Liberals out there?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm gonna take a wild guess that to reach zero on purity you'd have to rate the uncle having a blow up doll custom made to look like his niece as full on brilliant.

Man oh man, that was one where I could say "NOT ok, dude!"

 

[red_elk]

I felt many questions were like "Is it ok if this person behaves like an a-hole?"
This is ambiguous question. It's ok in the sense that it's not prohibited, but I wouldn't do the same. What should I answer?

 

[Synobun]

I felt many questions were like "Is it ok if this person behaves like an a-hole?"
This is ambiguous question. It's ok in the sense that it's not prohibited, but I wouldn't do the same. What should I answer?

Your moral position on the act, I presume. Without a sense of drastic moral relativism, you have an opinion on what happens and whether or not it should happen.

 

[metatron]

It's not surprising when the test marks conservative and libertarian far more strictly than it does leftism. Conservative in particular requires some fairly pro-collectivism answers while libertarian requires flouting of the social contract (based on the make-up of the test).

Say what now?

Seeing how i appear to be the frontrunner in that department (despite not identifying as libertarian) i have to inform you that i hardly did any flouting of the social contract.
Nor do i see how the test would require it.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I felt many questions were like "Is it ok if this person behaves like an a-hole?"
This is ambiguous question. It's ok in the sense that it's not prohibited, but I wouldn't do the same. What should I answer?

Yeah, I had that trouble with a good many of them. That's why my go-to answer was one click toward Not-OK: The thing described here is not-OK, but I'm not stepping in to tell this jerk as much.

 

[El_Machinae]

The big insight from Haidt is that it very much is a valuation of the various moral senses. Sometimes we'll look at someone's moral values and think the values are illogical. And then we stop thinking about it, because we assume they're wrong and we're right. But it really is a balance of valuations, and there are literally perceptions that people have that you won't have.

Haidt's work tries to answer the question "why do people, who're honestly intending to be good people, so vociferously disagree on some topics?" . Sometimes it's a function of a difference in facts, but sometimes it's a difference in instincts.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Still, it's not as though the six are morally equal. Care trumps all the others.

 

[Farm Boy]

Still, it's not as though the six are morally equal. Care trumps all the others.

That's a luxury.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Huh?

 

[Farm Boy]

Care is a goodness, but it doesn't enable itself, by itself, alone.

It's certainly a hellish export when overdone.

 

[El_Machinae]

'Care' tends to be shared by everyone. But in a zero-sum world, it's the ratio of how much the other moral senses interfere with the care instinct.

A really great example is the urge to punish, where punishment itself is a desired outcome. Liberals tend to view punishment as a combination of deterrence and rehabilitation, and conservatives will agree. But there's also a justice component that liberals actually just cannot perceive as clearly, a moral good in and of itself.