Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (110442)	5/2/2009 3:09:20 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541490

<<<Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe -- And Here's Why It Matters >>> I don't think it matters that much. If people on either side of the Liberal/Conservative spectrum are equally intelligent, well informed, and free of character defects they will end up in pretty much the same position. Whether the subject is about abortion, torture, capital punishment, or war and peace. Nobody wants abortion, nobody wants to use torture, nobody wants to see people killed, and everyone wants peace. But people with varying degrees of deficiency in any of these areas eg intelligence, education, and character can fall on either side of the Liberal/Conservative divide. That is when human waste products hit the fan.

To: Suma who wrote (110442)	5/2/2009 3:30:09 PM
From: JohnM	Respond to of 541490

Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe -- And Here's Why It Matters Thanks for the post, ML. I'm familiar with the Kohlberg arguments which I've always thought suspect because of over generalizing from small data sets. They've been widely criticized for a failure to appreciate gender differences. Though that critique is also subject to the same criticism. But I'm unfamiliar with Schweder's work. Or Haidt's for that matter. My first reaction is the same as before, the tendency to over generalize from small data sets. Haidt has clearly broadened the data set but now, if I understand this article correctly, wishes to make claims of universality to his five dimensions. Frequent, familiar, and serious mistake. As for the claim that conservatives and liberals inhabit different moral universes, I'm not so certain. My first reaction is that it pours cement on something that's actually more fluid. In most cases. Let me take that "most cases" first. I have no doubt that folk who've worked their positions out carefully might inhabit largely different political points of view. But I don't think that's true of most folks who think about politics. So let's just say the data set Haidt has in mind are folks who care about politics and follow it fairly carefully. My guess is that even among that set, his characterization fits, at best, only the hard core. Of which there are not that many. So we are down to a precious few. Certainly it might be true or some kind of argument like this of conservatives like Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, Gingrich, etc. And, given the politics of the moment, I can't think of folk on the left, well known, that occupy that kind of hard core positions couple with a notion, as Vega argued, of politics as warfare. That latter is not even Olberman. So, thanks for posting it. I'll certainly keep it in mind.

To: Suma who wrote (110442)	5/2/2009 6:18:46 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541490

Suma - That is a fascinating article. It reinforces some things that I have seen and some things I have believed intuitively, and gives me good information about why. I hope that we do begin teaching civics in our schools, with and emphasis on promoting this kind of understanding. I remember trying to promote certain ideas in a civics class in the eighth grade, and there was only one other student who could even understand what I was trying to say. The teacher and everyone else just thought I was a looney. I think it would have been good for the entire class, including me, to have had a broader view. - Allen

To: Suma who wrote (110442)	5/3/2009 12:17:51 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 541490

Thanks for posting that article. I found it very interesting.

To: Suma who wrote (110442)	5/4/2009 8:08:11 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541490

I found the article interesting. With the complex subject Haidt's taking on his analysis is doomed to be imperfect, and incomplete but he has some interesting things to say. I think his formulation of different values works well as a way to describe much of the disagreement about "gay marriage". But on some other issues, I think his discription of and assignment (to liberals or conservatives) of "fairness/reciprocity" and "authority/respect" is simplistic or for some people even flat our wrong. For example look at the small government conservative view on low taxes. That's hardly an issue of supporting social hierarchy (or purity/sanctity, or for may "in group loyalty"). But for many it fits with "Fairness/reciprocity" (seeing high taxes as unfair, and limiting of people rights. Or harm/care (seeing high taxes as harmful, looking both at the direct harm they do to those they are levied against, but particularly the indirect harm, which would have much more widespread effects). Other ideas that could apply are autonomy (from Shweder's breakdown of values), or efficiency (which neither one sets as a value, and perhaps with good reason, since often both sides of any issue sees their solution as more efficient, and since you have to have some sort of aim in the first place to determine if your actions efficiently meet that end) And I can see liberal issues that draw support from the ideas of authority/respect or purity/sanctity. For example some forms of environmentalist views are very strong on the last one. As for in-group loyalty, you see that in every important political group (or almost every sort of group). For example comparing fascists with communists. Fascists may have nationalist in-group loyalty, while communists may have class in-group loyalty. Less extreme more nuanced views wouldn't break down so cleanly buy some level of in-group loyalty to some group is nearly universal.