Liberals aren't evil... they just have a narrow range of morality

[Tee Kay]

There's an... interesting... article that I want to share with you. I'll quote the part most likely to start a flame war here; you can read the rest in the link below.

His empirical research into the moral sentiments of people from around the world leads him to identify six dimensions to people's moral concerns. First is care/harm; we are sensitive to signs of suffering and need, and despise cruelty. Second is liberty/oppression; we resent attempts to dominate us. Third is fairness/cheating; people should be rewarded or punished in proportion to their deeds.

Then there's loyalty/betrayal; we trust and reward team players, but want to sanction those who betray the group. Next is authority/subversion; we recognise rank or status and disapprove of those not behaving properly, given their position. Finally there's sanctity/degradation; we care about what we do with our bodies and what we put into them.

Haidt believes these moral concerns are shared by people regardless of their culture, nationality or wealth. But, of course, people interpret them differently.

Our differing moral emphases are reflected in our differing political sympathies. So the unending battle between small-l liberal and conservative policies is a manifestation of ''deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society''. Haidt finds that small-l liberals' moral concerns are limited to just the first three dimensions: they care deeply about the harm suffered by minorities and the needs of the poor, about oppression and about fairness.

Conservatives, on the other hand, care about all six dimensions. Their most sacred value is to ''preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community''. So they worry also about loyalty, acceptance of authority and the sanctity of our bodies.

The conservatives' broader range of moral concerns means they understand the motivations of liberals better than liberals understand the motives of conservatives.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...eternal-war-20121002-26xbn.html#ixzz28EhvGFsx

Is he right?

 

[Borachio]

Definitely not in my case. Assuming I really am a small l liberal, that is.

The only dimension I don't have much truck with is the authority/subversion one. But that's only because I've had a lifetime, and a gut full, of "authority" letting everyone down. But at the same time I don't think a diet of 100% subversion would be preferable.

Anyway, that's my initial, probably too hasty, reaction.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Is he right?

It sounds logical, but only if you subscribe to the notion that conservatives and liberals are two fundamentally different kinds of people.
Stupid American (and apparently also Australian) dichotomy.

 

[Masada]

It sounds logical, but only if you subscribe to the notion that conservatives and liberals are two fundamentally different kinds of people.
Stupid American (and apparently also Australian) dichotomy.

The Liberal Party is our conservative party.

 

[Verbose]

It sounds logical, but only if you subscribe to the notion that conservatives and liberals are two fundamentally different kinds of people.
Stupid American (and apparently also Australian) dichotomy.

Fully agree with you.

Just highlighting the bolded bit; yes of course it sounds logical. A LOT of very diverse and mutually exclusive things do in fact sound logical, after someone has set about selecting the parameters he will argue within.

That kind of logic most definitely is badly overestimated. It's not that hard to be internally consistent. Will it stand up to a confrontation with outside reality seems more urgent to me at least?

 

[Tycho Brahe]

Why doesn't he compare the smal-l liberals whith smal-c conservatives?

 

[Cutlass]

There's an... interesting... article that I want to share with you. I'll quote the part most likely to start a flame war here; you can read the rest in the link below.



Is he right?

Why would he think that conservatives (at least the American breed) are strong on the first 3 concerns? Recent American conservatives are defined by their rejection of morality on those issues.

 

[Tee Kay]

Why doesn't he compare the smal-l liberals whith smal-c conservatives?

Because

The Liberal Party is our conservative party.

 

[Borachio]

If you're trying to confuse me, you have succeeded.

I thought the OP article was comparing small l liberal with small c conservatives.

I'm wrong, apparently. But what then is he referring to? The Liberal Party, who are conservatives in the US, with other conservatives? I can't make sense of this.

 

[warpus]

Conservatives, on the other hand, care about all six dimensions. Their most sacred value is to ''preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community''.

Conservatives want to conserve traditional values and institutions..

Shocking!

 

[Tee Kay]

If you're trying to confuse me, you have succeeded.

I thought the OP article was comparing small l liberal with small c conservatives.

I'm wrong, apparently. But what then is he referring to? The Liberal Party, who are conservatives in the US, with other conservatives? I can't make sense of this.

Okay, the "Liberal Party" is the conservative party in Australia. The Australian Labor Party is traditionally on the Left, though there are Left and Right factions.

That's why, in Australian political discourse, people distinguish between "big L" Liberals who are members or supporters of the Liberal Party and therefore either market liberals or conservatives, and "small l" liberals, who are closer to liberals in the American sense.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Too much nonsense mingled together to bother to engage. Let's just say that making up categories, giving them names and making up a distribution and then go "Look. There. are. more. words. Mooooar" makes me want to call him a name.

 

[Borachio]

Okay, the "Liberal Party" is the conservative party in Australia. The Australian Labor Party is traditionally on the Left, though there are Left and Right factions.

That's why, in Australian political discourse, people distinguish between "big L" Liberals who are members or supporters of the Liberal Party and therefore either market liberals or conservatives, and "small l" liberals, who are closer to liberals in the American sense.

Yes, but the article says he's comparing small l liberals with conservatives. Which makes sense to me.

But then when Tycho Brahe said "why doesn't he compare small l with small c?" (which confused me because as far as I can see the article does do this), you said "because of the Liberal party".

I'm sorry. I'm clearly missing something. Don't worry about it. I'll either figure it out or give up.

 

[Little Faith]

Ahhh, a transparent attempt at "framing" the issue.

Let's start by defining morality as whatever conservatives care about and add some psychological mumbo-jumbo to make it look more legit.

Liberals, of course, are then "allowed" to be moral to the extent their agendas overlap with conservatives.

Then we'll "mercifully" extend a hand to these "wayward children" who have forgotten their true conservative selves because we are totally not demonizing our opposition. No sir, we only want the best for them, we want them to become like us.

 

[Tee Kay]

Yes, but the article says he's comparing small l liberals with conservatives. Which makes sense to me.

But then when Tycho Brahe said "why doesn't he compare small l with small c?" (which confused me because as far as I can see the article does do this), you said "because of the Liberal party".

I'm sorry. I'm clearly missing something. Don't worry about it. I'll either figure it out or give up.

Because there is a need to distinguish Liberal and liberal but not Conservative and conservative.

 

[Farm Boy]

The conservatives' broader range of moral concerns means they understand the motivations of liberals better than liberals understand the motives of conservatives.

-----------------

Why would he think that conservatives (at least the American breed) are strong on the first 3 concerns? Recent American conservatives are defined by their rejection of morality on those issues.

Ahhh, a transparent attempt at "framing" the issue.

Let's start by defining morality as whatever conservatives care about and add some psychological mumbo-jumbo to make it look more legit.

Liberals, of course, are then "allowed" to be moral to the extent their agendas overlap with conservatives.

Then we'll "mercifully" extend a hand to these "wayward children" who have forgotten their true conservative selves because we are totally not demonizing our opposition. No sir, we only want the best for them, we want them to become like us.

Anecdotal evidence in support of the author's conclusion.

 

[Ailedhoo]

The figure who wrote this article has a narrow view of politics, moraity and humanity generally. Morallity is a complex notion. The figure demonstrated a great issue of their own narrow view with the following:

Next is authority/subversion; we recognise rank or status and disapprove of those not behaving properly, given their position

...I hope this will unite conseratives and liberals in concern that this figure is messuring the morality of a person by how much of a "yes men" they are. Are the people who rally against a dictatorship immoral becasue it is moral to reconise rank? Just consideration.

As for the bodies... that is an complex issue all together. The issue of group depends also on the group in question but even otherwise there is issue on reason.

 

[Core Imposter]

I think that you have two distinctions in play. People tend to adopt the viewpoints of friends and families. There are a whole lot of people who are just marginally self aware and these folks just pick up an imprint and run with it.

Secondly, the difference between liberals and conservatives is largely genetic. Conservatives are the decendants of the survivors and achievers of history. Liberals genes are the less vigorous combinations that have become more common as society has evolved into one that shelters and perpetuates its less capable and more whiney elements, that which in the past has naturally been eliminated and minimized by the rigors of pre-modern life.

I don't think its worthwhile to look at the differences in terms of morality. Conservatives accept standards based on reality and God, liberals are the goal post movers who constantly redefine everything as necessary to get them out of their present jam and or spare themselves any disclipline, but is this not just a effect? I think so. Its not a cause. The root cause is genetic.

 

[Ailedhoo]

I think that you have two distinctions in play. People tend to adopt the viewpoints of friends and families. There are a whole lot of people who are just marginally self aware and these folks just pick up an imprint and run with it.

A observation but what of those that take views different to their ways?

Secondly, the difference between liberals and conservatives is largely genetic. Conservatives are the decendants of the survivors and achievers of history. Liberals genes are the less vigorous combinations that have become more common as society has evolved into one that shelters and perpetuates its less capable and more whiney elements, that which in the past has naturally been eliminated and minimized by the rigors of pre-modern life.

...

What?

"Decendants?"

"Less capable and more whiney elerments?"

I am sorry but your are making less sence then that article.

I don't think its worthwhile to look at the differences in terms of morality. Conservatives accept standards based on reality and God, liberals are the goal post movers who constantly redefine everything as necessary to get them out of their present jam and or spare themselves any disclipline, but is this not just a effect? I think so. Its not a cause. The root cause is genetic.

So your argument is of reality difference. I am sorry but conseratives and liberals are of ideologies, not of this "reality" versus "goal post moving" that you claim. And you genetic theory is pure ridicule.

O and as a agnostic I wish to note that conserativism is not the domain of the theist just as liberalism is not the domian of the... not theist.



MisterCooper: a fine example of Poe's Law.

The world is not in black and white.

 

[Farm Boy]

I think that you have two distinctions in play. People tend to adopt the viewpoints of friends and families. There are a whole lot of people who are just marginally self aware and these folks just pick up an imprint and run with it.

Secondly, the difference between liberals and conservatives is largely genetic. Conservatives are the decendants of the survivors and achievers of history. Liberals genes are the less vigorous combinations that have become more common as society has evolved into one that shelters and perpetuates its less capable and more whiney elements, that which in the past has naturally been eliminated and minimized by the rigors of pre-modern life.

I don't think its worthwhile to look at the differences in terms of morality. Conservatives accept standards based on reality and God, liberals are the goal post movers who constantly redefine everything as necessary to get them out of their present jam and or spare themselves any disclipline, but is this not just a effect? I think so. Its not a cause. The root cause is genetic.

Anecdotal evidence contrary to the author's conclusion.