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

[warpus]

Or it could be that the author is anticipating the trite "yer callin meh evil!" response.

You don't write a balanced article by prefacing it with: "Women/Republicans/Mexicans aren't *really* evil after all"

 

[Farm Boy]

I would still be interested in tossing around the idea no matter who it came from or what buffer language it decides to use depending on the anticipated audience. But w/e.

 

[Crezth]

Blacks aren't really idiotic subhumans good only for hard physical labor, studies say,

 

[Farm Boy]

And that's a good point to make. Do you really think you make the same point to everybody by using the same language despite whatever background they come from? Ohwai...this is that whole disregarding the listener's past and existing notions bit. I think this might actually have tangential application here. Interesting.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[Crezth]

farm boy

what are you saying

 

[Cutlass]

Where in that post did anyone say anything about evil? Unless there are really some doozies in the rest of the article not shown all that was said is that conservatives tend to extend moral consideration to more things than liberals. It didn't say those things should be valued or that not valuing them is wrong, merely that they are valued. If you roll with that premise, then the statement of the article can be correct - that a conservative can understand a liberal value system while a liberal is somewhat bewildered by a conservative one, since they are attaching value to something a more liberal mindset finds valueless. If you are attaching good/evil to the quote in the OP you are really looking far too hard for reasons to be indirectly insulted.

I don't agree. It isn't that liberals don't understand the conservative values, but rather that we think them wrong. Liberals tend to place more value on both individual liberty and community consciousness than conservatives do. So the values of tradition, like in the marriage debate, just are not seen as important than the value of liberty. If anything, conservatives have less understanding of what liberals consider values than the other way around, as you indicated.

 

[Farm Boy]

farm boy

what are you saying

Must be on different pages entirely here. I guess I find the idea contained in the quoted paragraph in the OP interesting. Not necessarily valid, but something good to think on as to whether or not it has any applications even if not the whole theory forwarded by whatever author wrote it.

The fact that he includes language couched to deflect criticism does not render his ideas invalid or even less valid. It might just be he knows what audience he is typically writing for. Phrasing a study on black people in the light of them being "idiotic subhumans" may indicate a form of innate bias in either the author or intended audience but it does not render any argument put forth afterwards wrong. Framing that seems outrageous to one group may actually aid comprehension to another group of readers. That's just effective communication at work.

What we seem to have is a hypothesis that a liberal mindset extends moral consideration to a narrower spectrum of issues that a conservative one. Ok, if so then what? If this is true, then a conservative may indeed be able typically to at least understand, if not agree with, liberal argumentation. They also morally value many of the things that liberals value while disagreeing with the relative importance of different issues. If a liberal mindset simply does not extend moral value to some things that a conservative one does, does that lend any credence to the conclusion that a liberal may lack full understanding of the moral calculus a conservative is going through to reach a decision on a moral issue?

I don't know. It is interesting to think about though. I see some anecdotal evidence that may support this in how different "political compass affiliations" choose language when they address each other. But it's mixed wishy washy both ways.

I'm out of time for looking stuff up on the internet right now and that's sad because I cannot for the life of me find a transcript of an NPR interview earlier this year that I wanted. I found this massive 60 minute clip which is pretty on topic but not a transcript or summary. Watch it if you're bored I guess. http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com...-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/

I don't agree. It isn't that liberals don't understand the conservative values, but rather that we think them wrong. Liberals tend to place more value on both individual liberty and community consciousness than conservatives do. So the values of tradition, like in the marriage debate, just are not seen as important than the value of liberty. If anything, conservatives have less understanding of what liberals consider values than the other way around, as you indicated.

I'm not trying to indicate anything, I'm attempting to toss around an interesting idea rather than just dismiss it with random ad hominem-esque reasoning.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not trying to indicate anything, I'm attempting to toss around an interesting idea rather than just dismiss it with random ad hominem-esque reasoning.

And how do you think I was doing that?

 

[Farm Boy]

And how do you think I was doing that?

You weren't!

 

[El_Machinae]

I've quite enjoyed Haidt's lectures. I'd really recommend them instead of reading a few paragraphs of a news piece.

The groups of people tended to have levels of morality, it's just that they balance them differently. It's not the simple balancing that we all do ("other people's suffering vs. my gain") but levels that dealt with bodily and spiritual purity, types of fairness, types of liberty.

 

[Angst]

Farm Boy, the problem is that he's condescending. It's like he's being apologetic for a group's certain kind of view or behavior, which he sees as wrong. Don't you think it's degrading for a liberal for being told that he's less moral? (Since it's highlighted in the article that conservatives are more morally enlightened, which is implicitly a goal in itself; it's better to have a well-developed participation in and understanding of morality than those poor misunderstanding liberals.

And heck, why would that even be the case? When should it matter that he's more moral than the average liberal? I can only translate it to moralism which is a bad thing.)

Or perhaps it's even arrogant for the conservative to claim liberals don't understand tradition as a moral goal. "If you don't agree with this, you don't understand it." It's like reading 18-year-old Randians.

edit: i think i misread the post, but i'm too lazy to rewrite my own. you are free to counterpoint my views because i'm wrong. my biggest issue is with moralism anyways, not his conservacentered stuff

 

[AlpsStranger]

I consider "bodily purity" valuable only to the level that it impacts health, mental health, or my ability to take you seriously socially. It has no intrinsic value to me. You can't shame or browbeat me into giving a hot fudgy damn about it for its own sake.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think Haidt's full thesis (i.e., his talks) aren't condescending at all. It's probably the presentation (i.e., a few paragraphs) that's warping his views.


Link to video.

Mac Recommended.

take you seriously socially

Yup, that's part of the scale. If their sense of style biases you, then it does mean something.

 

[Angst]

i'm happy to hear that

 

[AlpsStranger]

To clarify what I mean by "take you seriously socially."

This doesn't offend me on a moral level like it might a conservative. It just makes me think the person is probably insufferable and/or stupid.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, I know what you mean.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[Farm Boy]

It's like he's being apologetic for a group's certain kind of view or behavior, which he sees as wrong. Don't you think it's degrading for a liberal for being told that he's less moral?

I guess I don't equate "narrower range" with "less moral." I don't think those are equal terms. My wife truly does not understand my deep attachment and sense of correct action in helping with certain types of labor revolving around dirt. She is not a less moral person for it. She simply does not value it when I do. I don't understand her sense of obligation and need to travel and experience other places because life has given her the opportunity. I don't feel like I've slid down the path to moral bankruptcy on that point either.