Different Moral Foundations (Liberal/Conservative)

[ruby sparks]

A discussion on BBC tv in which some of the relevant issues are explored:

https://vimeo.com/276940268

 

[Opoponax]

The Righteous Mind's publication date is 2012, not 1950. It's about the conservatives we have today.

I assume conservatives think they are acting in good faith, and think they are concerned with/guided by Haidt's six foundations. And if we don't talk to them in terms of more than the two liberal foundations, we'll hardly be communicating with them at all.

Good faith isn't on the table for them. That is, it's not something they consider. Take the tax cut for example. Trump stood at the podium and said it wasn't going to benefit him ("believe me," is what he added). That was a boldfaced fucking lie, and he didn't care if anyone knew he was lying.

There is no conversation to be had with a person/mindset like that.

Meanwhile, conservative voters are worried about towns that ban plastic straws, whether Elizabeth Warren lied on a college application god knows how long ago, and somehow seem convinced that Muslims are ready to take over the nation and institute Sharia law.

It's not rational. You can't have dialogue with a group of people who, if on the Titanic as it was slipping beneath the surface, would be loudly complaining that their soup at dinner had cooled to room temperature yet no one had still done anything about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

The Righteous Mind's publication date is 2012, not 1950. It's about the conservatives we have today.

I assume conservatives think they are acting in good faith, and think they are concerned with/guided by Haidt's six foundations. And if we don't talk to them in terms of more than the two liberal foundations, we'll hardly be communicating with them at all.

Good faith isn't on the table for them. That is, it's not something they consider. Take the tax cut for example. Trump stood at the podium and said it wasn't going to benefit him ("believe me," is what he added). That was a boldfaced fucking lie, and he didn't care if anyone knew he was lying.

There is no conversation to be had with a person/mindset like that.

Meanwhile, conservative voters are worried about towns that ban plastic straws, whether Elizabeth Warren lied on a college application god knows how long ago, and somehow seem convinced that Muslims are ready to take over the nation and institute Sharia law.

It's not rational. You can't have dialogue with a group of people who, if on the Titanic as it was slipping beneath the surface, would be loudly complaining that their soup at dinner had cooled to room temperature yet no one had still done anything about it.

Not to mention the fact I keep bringing up here that I and many others refuse to engage on some or all of those moral foundations because they are fallacious and faulty means of ethical operation. Seriously, it's like someone saying "why don't you accept my anecdotes as proof of my statistical claims", responding "anecdotes cannot leverage statistical claims", and then them coming back with throwing a fucking tantrum.

Personally I reject ALL moral foundations in any philosophical discussion of the law (as any discussion of law should be). If you can't back up authority with wisdom, tradition with explanation, or "purity" with ethical game theory, we have nothing to discuss, because you have no argument.

 

[Wiploc]

The Righteous Mind's publication date is 2012, not 1950. It's about the conservatives we have today.

I assume conservatives think they are acting in good faith, and think they are concerned with/guided by Haidt's six foundations. And if we don't talk to them in terms of more than the two liberal foundations, we'll hardly be communicating with them at all.

Good faith isn't on the table for them. That is, it's not something they consider. Take the tax cut for example. Trump stood at the podium and said it wasn't going to benefit him ("believe me," is what he added). That was a boldfaced fucking lie, and he didn't care if anyone knew he was lying.

There is no conversation to be had with a person/mindset like that.

If you're talking about Trump specifically, I'll agree. But half the country isn't made up of Trumps.

Meanwhile, conservative voters are worried about towns that ban plastic straws, whether Elizabeth Warren lied on a college application god knows how long ago, and somehow seem convinced that Muslims are ready to take over the nation and institute Sharia law.

It's not rational. You can't have dialogue with a group of people who, if on the Titanic as it was slipping beneath the surface, would be loudly complaining that their soup at dinner had cooled to room temperature yet no one had still done anything about it.

And if you talk to them only in terms of harm and fairness, you'll never help them see their inconsistencies.

 

[Worldtraveller]

If you're talking about Trump specifically, I'll agree. But half the country isn't made up of Trumps.

Yes. Yes it is. Sorry to break the news to you.

Meanwhile, conservative voters are worried about towns that ban plastic straws, whether Elizabeth Warren lied on a college application god knows how long ago, and somehow seem convinced that Muslims are ready to take over the nation and institute Sharia law.

It's not rational. You can't have dialogue with a group of people who, if on the Titanic as it was slipping beneath the surface, would be loudly complaining that their soup at dinner had cooled to room temperature yet no one had still done anything about it.

And if you talk to them only in terms of harm and fairness, you'll never help them see their inconsistencies.

That's their problem, not mine.

You're doing the same thing so many on the right try to do. They cry 'so much for the tolerant left' as we try to defend ourselves from assault. You are putting all, 100%, every tiny last little bit, of the onus on "us" to be nice to "them", to reach out and try to understand them.

Fuck. That. Noise. If the simple concept of "don't be an asshole to people" (i.e. fairness) is too much for them to grasp, I'm not interested in talking to them. You want me to talk to some right wing xian asshole about purity, a concept that most of them couldn't define with a dictionary, directions, and a fucking flashlight? No. Just no.

Why don't you go ask them to come talk to us, and try to understand a couple of simple concepts? You know, like empathy. That's fairly simple to explain, but they don't get, don't want to get it, and aren't interested. So yeah, this is like the other thread where liberals are being constantly asked to try to understand the "economic anxiety" of fucking Nazis, racists, and rapists.

I can say "no" only so many times before someone gets hurt.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yes. Yes it is. Sorry to break the news to you.

And if you talk to them only in terms of harm and fairness, you'll never help them see their inconsistencies.

That's their problem, not mine.

You're doing the same thing so many on the right try to do. They cry 'so much for the tolerant left' as we try to defend ourselves from assault. You are putting all, 100%, every tiny last little bit, of the onus on "us" to be nice to "them", to reach out and try to understand them.

Fuck. That. Noise. If the simple concept of "don't be an asshole to people" (i.e. fairness) is too much for them to grasp, I'm not interested in talking to them. You want me to talk to some right wing xian asshole about purity, a concept that most of them couldn't define with a dictionary, directions, and a fucking flashlight? No. Just no.

Why don't you go ask them to come talk to us, and try to understand a couple of simple concepts? You know, like empathy. That's fairly simple to explain, but they don't get, don't want to get it, and aren't interested. So yeah, this is like the other thread where liberals are being constantly asked to try to understand the "economic anxiety" of fucking Nazis, racists, and rapists.

I can say "no" only so many times before someone gets hurt.

The worst part is that authority is entirely personal and contextual: what makes someone an authority to a person is generally belief. What makes something "pure" is that it doesn't evoke FEELINGS of disgust, which is to say it is as ineffable as an individual's specific and complete madness. It's not that conservatives can't define it, it defies definition already on the face of it.

I'm not going to deal with someone else's madness.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Fuck. That. Noise. If the simple concept of "don't be an asshole to people" (i.e. fairness) is too much for them to grasp, I'm not interested in talking to them. You want me to talk to some right wing xian asshole about purity, a concept that most of them couldn't define with a dictionary, directions, and a fucking flashlight? No. Just no.

No. I don't think anybody is asking you to go talk to some right wing xian asshole about purity. You may want to keep up adhering to the "don't be an asshole to people" concept yourself though, both in speaking with them and in regard to those who are not them, if only to win over those who are not them. Sinking to the level of the hater only makes one a hater, and the one who will lose because they have less experience at being a hater. Fire doesn't put out fire.

Why don't you go ask them to come talk to us, and try to understand a couple of simple concepts? You know, like empathy. That's fairly simple to explain, but they don't get, don't want to get it, and aren't interested. So yeah, this is like the other thread where liberals are being constantly asked to try to understand the "economic anxiety" of fucking Nazis, racists, and rapists.

As Stephen Fry put it "do you want to feel morally superior, or do you want to be effective?"

By calling everyone Nazis, Racists, and Rapists, you can have the former. By keeping to your "don't be an asshole to people" rule and by being reasoned and sane in contrast, you can be the latter.