Different Moral Foundations (Liberal/Conservative)

[Jolly_Penguin]

I picked up Jon Haidt's book a few years ago, and found it enlightening. His research and theory is that there are six basic moral foundations found across cultures in humans and other primates, and that liberal minds prioritize only a couple whereas conservative minds weigh them all more evenly.

I am curious where you fall on these measures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm

This is THE value for liberals. It is prioritized by then heavily over all others.

Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating

This is the other important value to liberals. It is also a vitally important value to conservatives and conservatives often rank higher on it than liberals do.

Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal

Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion

Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation

These three are more uniquely conservative. Liberals place some, but far less value on these.

A sixth foundation, liberty (opposite of oppression) was theorized by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind, chapter eight, in response to the need to differentiate between proportionality fairness and the objections he had received from conservatives and libertarians (United States usage) to coercion by a dominating power or person.[9] Haidt noted that the latter group's moral matrix relies almost entirely on the liberty foundation.

So there are the libertarians with the big "you aren't the boss of me" mentality.

- - - Updated - - -

I suspect that the illinerals as opposed to other liberals are higher on the traits Haidt marks as conservative traits (loyalty, purity, authority/respect).

 

[Bronzeage]

the core purpose of any moral code, system, call it what you like, is to insure the survival of the group. This means that any particular individual may suffer for the good of the group, it can be well within the moral code.

The real problem of all of these discussions is that life, as we know it, is incredibly easy. We've spent the last several millennia at the top of the food chain, so the threat from large carnivores has all but disappeared. Much the same, we aren't nearly as likely to starve to death, as once was the case. In the 21st century, freezing to death in winter is another very rare hazard.

Our moral code has done so well at keeping the group safe, now the only serious threats come from within the group. This of course defines the group as "all humans currently alive."

 

[Patooka]

Jonathan Haidt? are you fucking kidding me? He's as much of a moral compass as my anus is a fine place for you to go. Good luck with that. A guy with a Benard Goldberg complex and yet an even larger axe to grind. Have you read his bullshit? It all translates into righteous indignation nonsense that only someone like Tucker Carlson would have a throbbing erection over.

Just out of curiosity, JollyPenguin; do you have any political opinions of your own? Or is it simply that you prefer quoting others and their ideology, such that if a counter-argument cripples your snowflake view of the world, you still have the luxury of whining "I'm just saying"?

 

[Jarhyn]

I picked up Jon Haidt's book a few years ago, and found it enlightening. His research and theory is that there are six basic moral foundations found across cultures in humans and other primates, and that liberal minds prioritize only a couple whereas conservative minds weigh them all more evenly.

I am curious where you fall on these measures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory



This is THE value for liberals. It is prioritized by then heavily over all others.



This is the other important value to liberals. It is also a vitally important value to conservatives and conservatives often rank higher on it than liberals do.

Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal

Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion

Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation

These three are more uniquely conservative. Liberals place some, but far less value on these.

A sixth foundation, liberty (opposite of oppression) was theorized by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind, chapter eight, in response to the need to differentiate between proportionality fairness and the objections he had received from conservatives and libertarians (United States usage) to coercion by a dominating power or person.[9] Haidt noted that the latter group's moral matrix relies almost entirely on the liberty foundation.

So there are the libertarians with the big "you aren't the boss of me" mentality.

- - - Updated - - -

I suspect that the illinerals as opposed to other liberals are higher on the traits Haidt marks as conservative traits (loyalty, purity, authority/respect).

while I fully accept that there are moral foundations that conservatives give more consideration to than liberals, I would pose that liberals have the right idea, largely because not all moral systems have a strong positive relationship to good ethics.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Jonathan Haidt? are you fucking kidding me?

No I am not fucking kidding you. He has a lot of good insights.

A guy with a Benard Goldberg complex and yet an even larger axe to grind.

Never heard of Benard Goldberg, so quickly googled him. He appears to be a rightwing fox news political pundits. Haidt is not that by any same stretch of the imagination.

His books, Righteous Mind, and Happiness Hypothesis, both are excellent reads. If they make you cry foul because they don't demonize the side of the political spectrum that is the opposite of yours, that says more of you than or him I'm afraid.

Just out of curiosity, JollyPenguin; do you have any political opinions of your own?

Indeed I do. And I have expressed them often here. I am surprised you didn't notice. I am a liberal, as distinguished from an illiberal. I fall directly into the care and fairness dimensions of moral foundations, and have near zero interest in purity, authority, or loyalty/groupishness.

I think my posts display that pretty well. I don't suck up to authority figures (mods here are one small example) and I call them out when they are abusive. I am no authoritarian. I see zero value in purity of any sort, and I find it more important to make a fair point, even for the outsider views that are not my own, going against group cohesion. I believe that illinerals hold the opposite in common with conservatives.

Where do you fall on these moral foundations?

If you actually read or listen to Haidt on this topic (the link above is a good starting point) you will see that he examines how these foundations developed and notes that each has had value for our species and it's societies.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

while I fully accept that there are moral foundations that conservatives give more consideration to than liberals, I would pose that liberals have the right idea, largely because not all moral systems have a strong positive relationship to good ethics.

I find it hard to advocate for moral foundations that are very low for me, so I won't take on that task, other than to say that Haidt makes a good study of each, how it developed, and what benefits it yields. And they all do have some benefit toeards a productive society, as blind as we liberals are to them, and as much as I would argue that those benefits are overblown.

 

[Jarhyn]

while I fully accept that there are moral foundations that conservatives give more consideration to than liberals, I would pose that liberals have the right idea, largely because not all moral systems have a strong positive relationship to good ethics.

I find it hard to advocate for moral foundations that are very low for me, so I won't take on that task, other than to say that Haidt makes a good study of each, how it developed, and what benefits it yields. And they all do have some benefit toeards a productive society, as blind as we liberals are to them, and as much as I would argue that those benefits are overblown.

The issue here that I see is that all moral systems are approximations of a theoretical "correct ethical framework" which is the theoretical "best strategy" for beings "like us". Some are better appproxomations and some worse, though most fall on some axis of (darwinistic) vs (pseudo-Lamarckistic) system: the former sees others/outsiders as rivals, and the latter attempts to turn outsiders into insiders as all insiders are additional adaptational resources. The big issue with Darwinism is that it is slow, brutal, and inefficient, particularly compared to the alternative. Said alternative is the reason that people aren't generally on the menu anymore.

The most dangerous aspect I see generally surrounding conservatives is that they tend strongly towards moral systems which lay on the "Darwin" side of that axis: tribalism ("loyalty"), alpha-worship("authority"), and reproductive monopoly("purity").

 

[Wiploc]

I picked up Jon Haidt's book a few years ago, and found it enlightening. ...

I was raised conservative, considered "liberal" a dirty word. But when I read Haidt's book, I identify completely; I'm proud to be a liberal.

Haidt's very good, though, at making me taste those other flavors. Those flavors exist. Conservatives aren't just crazy people claiming they exist.

Haidt is good at justifying the other moral foundations. There is reason to care about sanctity and hierarchy, etc. But note that his justifications are always in terms of harm and fairness. (He might argue that you should respect the police--or the Pope or your parents or some other hierarchical authority--in order to avoid harm. He never argues that you should avoid harm in order to respect the police.) Harm and fairness are, it seems to me, moral bedrock.

A friend of mine says liberals care about the purity (a moral foundation that Haidt says conservatives weigh more heavily than liberals do) of national parks, for instance. So it's a matter of who wants what to be pure, rather than a matter of which group cares about purity and which group doesn't. I'll keep this in mind as I reread the book.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

while I fully accept that there are moral foundations that conservatives give more consideration to than liberals, I would pose that liberals have the right idea, largely because not all moral systems have a strong positive relationship to good ethics.

I find it hard to advocate for moral foundations that are very low for me, so I won't take on that task, other than to say that Haidt makes a good study of each, how it developed, and what benefits it yields. And they all do have some benefit toeards a productive society, as blind as we liberals are to them, and as much as I would argue that those benefits are overblown.

The issue here that I see is that all moral systems are approximations of a theoretical "correct ethical framework" which is the theoretical "best strategy" for beings "like us". Some are better appproxomations and some worse, though most fall on some axis of (darwinistic) vs (pseudo-Lamarckistic) system: the former sees others/outsiders as rivals, and the latter attempts to turn outsiders into insiders as all insiders are additional adaptational resources. The big issue with Darwinism is that it is slow, brutal, and inefficient, particularly compared to the alternative. Said alternative is the reason that people aren't generally on the menu anymore.

The most dangerous aspect I see generally surrounding conservatives is that they tend strongly towards moral systems which lay on the "Darwin" side of that axis: tribalism ("loyalty"), alpha-worship("authority"), and reproductive monopoly("purity").

I agree.

But lets not pretend that those foundations the "Darwin" side isn't there for good survival reasons.

As much as I deplore tribalism (and I do), if you have zero tribalism (authority) and you have no out-group at all, then your group cohesion and empathy will be broad but minimized. Studies by Haidt and by others have shown that the small and strictly and tightly defined tribes have more empathy for one another within that gorup, along with less for those outside the group. It is why church groups become like families to a lot of people, and they say that we are all "brothers and sisters in Christ/Allah/etc". The wider the group is expanded, the less empathy is felt for anyone overall. Humans also have an innate sense to want to band together against a common external threat. Hostile space aliens may be the only way to suddenly and truly find humans all banding together in unity (against a new common foe). Absent that, I think that human society as it is today has come a long way and is better at this than ever in history really. We don't have many major world wars anymore.

Loyalty is obviously needed to some extent. It is why people follow laws. Zero loyalty wold mean chaos and anarchy. Conservatives value "Order and Good Government" (as a famous Canadian conservative put it). And in chaos, the first person people will look to is a conservative leader who promises safety, law, and order. Too much of this equals oppression of course.

Purity comes from cleanliness and basic biological reasons from avoiding disease. You don't eat where you poop. For many conservatives this carries over into social dynamics. For the extreme it twists into "racial purity". Ask any white liberal if they care if 200 years from now there are no more white people. Most won't. Many conservatives will. Liberals care about purity too, buying bottled water, worrying about pollution, etc. Its just a different focus.

I think the most interesting finding of Haidt's is on libertarians. These are people who value freedom and indviduality so much that they will answer questions like "It feels good to break rules just to break rules" in the affirmative.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Haidt is good at justifying the other moral foundations. There is reason to care about sanctity and hierarchy, etc. But note that his justifications are always in terms of harm and fairness. (He might argue that you should respect the police--or the Pope or your parents or some other matter of hierarchy--in order to avoid harm. He never argues that you should avoid harm in order to respect the police.) Harm and fairness are, it seems to me, the bedrock of morality.

As a liberal, I agree completely.

But I think he wrote his book from a liberal mindset himself. He admits that when he started this research he was a liberal, and doing this research made him more centrist.

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue here that I see is that all moral systems are approximations of a theoretical "correct ethical framework" which is the theoretical "best strategy" for beings "like us". Some are better appproxomations and some worse, though most fall on some axis of (darwinistic) vs (pseudo-Lamarckistic) system: the former sees others/outsiders as rivals, and the latter attempts to turn outsiders into insiders as all insiders are additional adaptational resources. The big issue with Darwinism is that it is slow, brutal, and inefficient, particularly compared to the alternative. Said alternative is the reason that people aren't generally on the menu anymore.

The most dangerous aspect I see generally surrounding conservatives is that they tend strongly towards moral systems which lay on the "Darwin" side of that axis: tribalism ("loyalty"), alpha-worship("authority"), and reproductive monopoly("purity").

I agree.

But lets not pretend that those foundations the "Darwin" side isn't there for good survival reasons.

As much as I deplore tribalism (and I do), if you have zero tribalism (authority) and you have no out-group at all, then your group cohesion and empathy will be broad but minimized. Studies by Haidt and by others have shown that the small and strictly and tightly defined tribes have more empathy for one another within that gorup, along with less for those outside the group. It is why church groups become like families to a lot of people, and they say that we are all "brothers and sisters in Christ/Allah/etc". The wider the group is expanded, the less empathy is felt for anyone overall. Humans also have an innate sense to want to band together against a common external threat. Hostile space aliens may be the only way to suddenly and truly find humans all banding together in unity (against a new common foe). Absent that, I think that human society as it is today has come a long way and is better at this than ever in history really. We don't have many major world wars anymore.

Loyalty is obviously needed to some extent. It is why people follow laws. Zero loyalty wold mean chaos and anarchy. Conservatives value "Order and Good Government" (as a famous Canadian conservative put it). And in chaos, the first person people will look to is a conservative leader who promises safety, law, and order. Too much of this equals oppression of course.

Purity comes from cleanliness and basic biological reasons from avoiding disease. You don't eat where you poop. For many conservatives this carries over into social dynamics. For the extreme it twists into "racial purity". Ask any white liberal if they care if 200 years from now there are no more white people. Most won't. Many conservatives will. Liberals care about purity too, buying bottled water, worrying about pollution, etc. Its just a different focus.

I think the most interesting finding of Haidt's is on libertarians. These are people who value freedom and indviduality so much that they will answer questions like "It feels good to break rules just to break rules" in the affirmative.

The other issue, here, though, is that the beneficial elements of a lot of those moral systems are superseded/obsoleted/deprecated by the benefits of more liberal models. Just to use one example, You can (and I argue, should) have cleanliness without "purity", by understanding disease without having to invoke "it makes me feel dirty" as a biological mechanism to decide it, and thus avoid the problematic "other people having sex makes me feel dirty so they shouldn't do it" that itself is just trying to game the reproductive zero-sum-game (your children use resources I want for MY children, so you shouldn't have any children), etc.

Largely it comes down to issues with continuing to rely on "legacy" moral models.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Further on the "Purity" aspect:

Would you pay more for a guitar Elvis used to play? Would you stir soup with a brand new flyswatter that has never been used? Studies on digust and how it is generated and what its benefits may be in modern society is an interesting question. I don't have a good answer, because I score very low on the scale. I wouldn't see any added value in that guitar and I would stir that soup.

I would also note that the more liberal model is not more complicated. Its much simpler. It operates primarily on only the two foundations of care and fairness, ignoring or downplaying all else.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This may also be a perfect place to quote one of my favourite quotes

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

 

[Wiploc]

J
thus avoid the problematic "other people having sex makes me feel dirty so they shouldn't do it"

Heard a comedian on the radio. This presumably is dated to just after gay marriage became legally recognized.

He was riffing on somebody trying to order cake in a restaurant, and the guy at the next table kept cancelling the order. "You could maybe eat it at home if you wanted, in private. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't call it "cake." For you it can be a "civil muffin."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This may also be a perfect place to quote one of my favourite quotes

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

We are so beyond "....reasons on the opposite side" in the US.

Liberals: We want UHC.
Conservatives: NOOOOOOO! Their all going to laugh at you! State mandated markets is the way to go.
Liberals: Fine, we'll go with the state mandated markets.
Conservatives: NOOOOOOO! Their all going to laugh at you!
Liberals: What?! You said use a state mandated market system.
Conservatives: DEATH PANELS!!! YOU ARE GOING TO KILL GRANDMA!!!

Liberals: We want to mandate reductions in CO2 emissions.
Conservatives: NOOOOOOO! Their all going to laugh at you! Cap and Trade... let the market decide.
Liberals: Fine, we'll go with the Cap and Trade thing.
Conservatives: NOOOOOOO! Their all going to laugh at you!
Liberals: What?! You said use cap and trade
Conservatives: AL GORE FLIES ALOT!!! THEY ARE ALL GOING TO LAUGH AT YOU!!!
Liberal: *sigh*

Please keep in mind, there is almost no hyperbole in this post. I just injected a little outdated Adam Sandler humor.

 

[Jarhyn]

Further on the "Purity" aspect:

Would you pay more for a guitar Elvis used to play? Would you stir soup with a brand new flyswatter that has never been used? Studies on digust and how it is generated and what its benefits may be in modern society is an interesting question. I don't have a good answer, because I score very low on the scale. I wouldn't see any added value in that guitar and I would stir that soup.

I would also note that the more liberal model is not more complicated. Its much simpler. It operates primarily on only the two foundations of care and fairness, ignoring or downplaying all else.

On those questions: I am a very self-aware person. I have some internal triggers with respect to "purity", but they are my own madness and I would never impose this madness on anyone who does not love me. I would not buy the guitar, though I find a somatic "romanticism" in considering certain things as of "special" value. I would also not stir the soup; I have a neurosis in which things I encounter can become "trash" or "gross" in a somatic sense: a wrapped folded up is fine to touch, but in a ball and it's "gross" to me. There is no material difference, but it takes an act of steeled will for me to even touch a balled up wrapper. Another example of this concept is the scene in adventure time where finn's hat "eats" their food and they throw it all away... despite it not having changed at all materially, having come out the hat's 'butt' was enough to do this same thing for them.

The important part here is understanding that difference, the difference between the somatic 'moral' reaction that I can only ethically use to steer my own behavior (or those with whom I share love, so as to ask politely not to hand me "gross trash" such as balled wrappers), and that which I can apply as an expectation of others. I fully believe we should yeah this differentiation early and often. The bigger problem is that the same system of the brain that gives "gross trash" feels also generates the "their sex/pleasure is gross" feels.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I picked up Jon Haidt's book a few years ago, and found it enlightening. His research and theory is that there are six basic moral foundations found across cultures in humans and other primates, and that liberal minds prioritize only a couple whereas conservative minds weigh them all more evenly.

I am curious where you fall on these measures.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory



This is THE value for liberals. It is prioritized by then heavily over all others.



This is the other important value to liberals. It is also a vitally important value to conservatives and conservatives often rank higher on it than liberals do.

Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal

Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion

Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation

These three are more uniquely conservative. Liberals place some, but far less value on these.

A sixth foundation, liberty (opposite of oppression) was theorized by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind, chapter eight, in response to the need to differentiate between proportionality fairness and the objections he had received from conservatives and libertarians (United States usage) to coercion by a dominating power or person.[9] Haidt noted that the latter group's moral matrix relies almost entirely on the liberty foundation.

So there are the libertarians with the big "you aren't the boss of me" mentality.

- - - Updated - - -

I suspect that the illinerals as opposed to other liberals are higher on the traits Haidt marks as conservative traits (loyalty, purity, authority/respect).

Isn't this just the general understanding of what is liberal (change) and conservative (no change)? Conservatives want to keep the status quo, liberals want to expand rights.

Regarding Liberty, that needs to be written as "Individual Liberty".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This may also be a perfect place to quote one of my favourite quotes

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”

- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty"

We are so beyond "....reasons on the opposite side" in the US.

Liberals: We want UHC.
Conservatives: NOOOOOOO! Their all going to laugh at you! State mandated markets is the way to go.
Liberals: Fine, we'll go with the state mandated markets.
Conservatives: NOOOOOOO! Their all going to laugh at you!
Liberals: What?! You said use a state mandated market system.
Conservatives: DEATH PANELS!!! YOU ARE GOING TO KILL GRANDMA!!!

Liberals: We want to mandate reductions in CO2 emissions.
Conservatives: NOOOOOOO! Their all going to laugh at you! Cap and Trade... let the market decide.
Liberals: Fine, we'll go with the Cap and Trade thing.
Conservatives: NOOOOOOO! Their all going to laugh at you!
Liberals: What?! You said use cap and trade
Conservatives: AL GORE FLIES ALOT!!! THEY ARE ALL GOING TO LAUGH AT YOU!!!
Liberal: *sigh*

Please keep in mind, there is almost no hyperbole in this post. I just injected a little outdated Adam Sandler humor.

I think you need to re-read the John Stuart Mill quote. You are not presenting your other side in their most plausible and persuasive manner. There are indeed people, and indeed congresscritters and lots of those they influence who said exactly what you wrote, but that isn't the best argumentation that has and does exist on that side of the fence.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Further on the "Purity" aspect:

Would you pay more for a guitar Elvis used to play? Would you stir soup with a brand new flyswatter that has never been used? Studies on digust and how it is generated and what its benefits may be in modern society is an interesting question. I don't have a good answer, because I score very low on the scale. I wouldn't see any added value in that guitar and I would stir that soup.

I would also note that the more liberal model is not more complicated. Its much simpler. It operates primarily on only the two foundations of care and fairness, ignoring or downplaying all else.

On those questions: I am a very self-aware person. I have some internal triggers with respect to "purity", but they are my own madness and I would never impose this madness on anyone who does not love me. I would not buy the guitar, though I find a somatic "romanticism" in considering certain things as of "special" value. I would also not stir the soup; I have a neurosis in which things I encounter can become "trash" or "gross" in a somatic sense: a wrapped folded up is fine to touch, but in a ball and it's "gross" to me. There is no material difference, but it takes an act of steeled will for me to even touch a balled up wrapper. Another example of this concept is the scene in adventure time where finn's hat "eats" their food and they throw it all away... despite it not having changed at all materially, having come out the hat's 'butt' was enough to do this same thing for them.

The important part here is understanding that difference, the difference between the somatic 'moral' reaction that I can only ethically use to steer my own behavior (or those with whom I share love, so as to ask politely not to hand me "gross trash" such as balled wrappers), and that which I can apply as an expectation of others. I fully believe we should yeah this differentiation early and often. The bigger problem is that the same system of the brain that gives "gross trash" feels also generates the "their sex/pleasure is gross" feels.

Yes. Good points.

A more political version of this is beastiality. The image of a man having sex with a sheep is comical to some, revolting and thereby unethical others, and no amount of evidence that "the sheep liked it or the sheep initiated it" will suffice. I think the same goes for how a lot of conservatives saw/see gay sex and thereby them opposing gay marriage. It was/is seen as dirty and impure even to the point that it somehow managed to ruin their own normal sex and marriage.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Isn't this just the general understanding of what is liberal (change) and conservative (no change)? Conservatives want to keep the status quo, liberals want to expand rights.

I don't think it is that simple, no. Especially since what Haidt calls conservative values (purity, loyalty, authority/respect) are now being pushed strongly by those on the left by who I now refer to as lillibrals. They share these values with conservatives but push them with different agendas. I think society will head back in the illiberal/conservative direction and that these values will gain more prominence. I've already seen it happening. I expect both the conservatives and illiberals to grow as time goes on, polarized against one another, but both building on these foundations other than care and fairness (but not exclusive of care and fairness). This is also change from what was, and myself resisting that change and wanting liberalism (and to downplay these other moral foundations), doesn't make me a conservative (though I will be against that change).