Political differences in what is immoral

[doubtingt]

Mods: I just realized this might be better placed in "politics"

This new study shows how conservatives and liberals differ in morality.


They had 1500 people respond 5 times per day for 3 days to randomly timed probes sent to them on their cell phones. Each of the 15 probes asked whether in the preceding hour, the person had committed, been the victim of, witnessed or heard about either a moral or an immoral act. They described the nature of each act.
Liberals and conservatives didn't differ in sensitivity or awareness of moral and immoral acts. But they did differ in the types of acts they offered as moral and immoral. Most of the acts reported by everyone dealt with either showing care for or causing harm to others. But the other acts is where the differences were. Liberals were more likely to report acts as immoral that involved being unfair, dishonest, or oppressive, and moral acts of being fair, honest, and protecting liberties. In contrast, conservatives were more likely to report immoral acts of being disloyal, subverting authority, or degrading something that should be sanctified. Conservatives reported moral acts were more likely to entail being loyal and honoring the sanctity of something.

The study is the first attempt to examine people's moral actions and moral judgments with real in-the-moment concrete events and experiences. But the findings converge with what is already known from survey type studies using more abstract descriptions or hypothetical events. Basically, conservatives are authoritarians who place more moral weight on obedience and conforming to norms and expectations, while liberals place more weight on acting oppressive, unfairly, or dishonestly toward others.

 

[doubtingt]

BTW, the above differences held even after controlling for religiosity.

 

[Factinista]

[VIMEO][/VIMEO]

BTW, the above differences held even after controlling for religiosity.

This is the ol' Moral Foundations Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Foundations_Theory

1.Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
2.Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
3.Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
4.Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
5.Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
6.Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

I have thought that some of these shouldn't be in the category of "morality" but rather In-Group solidarity.

Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity don't seem to me to be moral factors. They can contribute to how a society behaves morally but if your asking about how to determine whats right and whats wrong they cannot help.

i would argue that Loyalty, Authority and Sancitity are morally neutral until you look at specific cases. Where I cannot think of an example where Care, Fairness and Liberty are not to be desired.

 

[doubtingt]

[VIMEO][/VIMEO]

BTW, the above differences held even after controlling for religiosity.

This is the ol' Moral Foundations Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Foundations_Theory

1.Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
2.Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
3.Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
4.Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
5.Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
6.Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

I have thought that some of these shouldn't be in the category of "morality" but rather In-Group solidarity.

Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity don't seem to me to be moral factors. They can contribute to how a society behaves morally but if your asking about how to determine whats right and whats wrong they cannot help.

i would argue that Loyalty, Authority and Sancitity are morally neutral until you look at specific cases. Where I cannot think of an example where Care, Fairness and Liberty are not to be desired.

Yeah, that's because you're a liberal. The whole point is that conservatives feel about disobedience like they do harming others, and they don't really care about fairness as a principle because they believe in inherent inequalities in the worth of people. Conservatives tend to parent instilling obedience as a moral virtue. Having a good reason to do something other than asked is not relevant, the fact you disobeyed is the transgression. That is why "because I said so" is a sufficient justification for them. Authority and Sanctity are about order and control, when these are valued above liberty, dignity, equality, and reason (as they are among conservatives), then violating them becomes a moral issue. Anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality is about valuing sanctity above liberty and equality. All theistic based morality has obedience to authority as the defining determinant of what is moral. IF morality is defined as the feeling that a person is wrong and should be coerced against doing X (whether by the community, State, or God), then all these dimensions are moral dimensions, but not equally for all people.

 

[Valjean]

Factinista, you stole my post!
Haidt's Moral Foundations was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title.

Liberals tend to de-emphasize the last three indices and hold harmfulness, oppression and unfairness to be immorality's sine qua non.
Conservatives, on the other hand, value all the indices more equally, and see coercive preservation of propriety and tradition as legitimate roles of government.

Conservatives believe "just following orders" is proper.
Conservatives believe questioning authority is improper.
Conservatives believe dissent and disrespect are improper.

(is my bias showing?)

http://politicsofthemind.com/2012/1...ying-beneath-the-surface-of-political-debate/

 

[Staircaseghost]

The whole point is that conservatives feel about disobedience like they do harming others, and they don't really care about fairness as a principle because they believe in inherent inequalities in the worth of people.

That's a pretty unfair reading of the results, yadda yadda see what I did there yadda.

"Less likely to care about" is not a synonym for "doesn't care about". And the belief in the existence of some inequivalence of moral worth is not the same as the denial of any possible equivalence of moral worth that would constitute grounds for judgments of fairness.

 

[Factinista]

[VIMEO][/VIMEO]

This is the ol' Moral Foundations Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Foundations_Theory

1.Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm.
2.Fairness/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions (He has also referred to this dimension as Proportionality.)
3.Liberty/oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized.
4.Loyalty/betrayal to your group, family, nation. (He has also referred to this dimension as Ingroup.)
5.Authority/subversion for tradition and legitimate authority. (He has also connected this foundation to a notion of Respect.)
6.Sanctity/degradation, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions. (He has also referred to this as Purity.)

I have thought that some of these shouldn't be in the category of "morality" but rather In-Group solidarity.

Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity don't seem to me to be moral factors. They can contribute to how a society behaves morally but if your asking about how to determine whats right and whats wrong they cannot help.

i would argue that Loyalty, Authority and Sancitity are morally neutral until you look at specific cases. Where I cannot think of an example where Care, Fairness and Liberty are not to be desired.

Yeah, that's because you're a liberal. The whole point is that conservatives feel about disobedience like they do harming others, and they don't really care about fairness as a principle because they believe in inherent inequalities in the worth of people. Conservatives tend to parent instilling obedience as a moral virtue. Having a good reason to do something other than asked is not relevant, the fact you disobeyed is the transgression. That is why "because I said so" is a sufficient justification for them. Authority and Sanctity are about order and control, when these are valued above liberty, dignity, equality, and reason (as they are among conservatives), then violating them becomes a moral issue. Anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality is about valuing sanctity above liberty and equality. All theistic based morality has obedience to authority as the defining determinant of what is moral. IF morality is defined as the feeling that a person is wrong and should be coerced against doing X (whether by the community, State, or God), then all these dimensions are moral dimensions, but not equally for all people.

Sure, being a liberal does predispose me to being more correct on moral issues

Deference to Authority is not moral. Authority is neutral in regards to morality, are you following the orders of the Southern Slaveholders of the 1800's or the community organizers who ran the Civil Rights era protests? Following Authority can be good and bad.

Harm is not neutral to morality. Harm is always bad, even in those calculations in which we are harming in order to reduce or prevent some greater harm it is still wrong to harm. When harming one can only be less bad.

In order to determine whether deferring to Authority is right or wrong you must consider greater principles, principles such as Harm.

 

[doubtingt]

The whole point is that conservatives feel about disobedience like they do harming others, and they don't really care about fairness as a principle because they believe in inherent inequalities in the worth of people.

That's a pretty unfair reading of the results, yadda yadda see what I did there yadda.

"Less likely to care about" is not a synonym for "doesn't care about". And the belief in the existence of some inequivalence of moral worth is not the same as the denial of any possible equivalence of moral worth that would constitute grounds for judgments of fairness.

I wasn't referring to only the results of the present study, but to the more general findings that conservatives presume and prefer inequality and hierarchies, thus fairness is not a common principle on which the evaluate the morality of actions. Conservatives notion of fairness is largely limited to judging a process as unfair if it fails to create unequal outcomes that they presume are merited by inequalities of worth. But often the details of the process are not known or visible, so its hard to judge whether they considered inherent differences in worth. Thus, unfairness from a conservative view is a harder judgment to make, whereas when fairness focus more upon equality of treatment, then its more obvious when this principle has been violated.
So, you're right that it isn't a total absence of caring about "fairness", but the conception of fairness differs, is similar to their other values of keeping things in proper order.

 

[doubtingt]

Yeah, that's because you're a liberal. The whole point is that conservatives feel about disobedience like they do harming others, and they don't really care about fairness as a principle because they believe in inherent inequalities in the worth of people. Conservatives tend to parent instilling obedience as a moral virtue. Having a good reason to do something other than asked is not relevant, the fact you disobeyed is the transgression. That is why "because I said so" is a sufficient justification for them. Authority and Sanctity are about order and control, when these are valued above liberty, dignity, equality, and reason (as they are among conservatives), then violating them becomes a moral issue. Anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality is about valuing sanctity above liberty and equality. All theistic based morality has obedience to authority as the defining determinant of what is moral. IF morality is defined as the feeling that a person is wrong and should be coerced against doing X (whether by the community, State, or God), then all these dimensions are moral dimensions, but not equally for all people.

Sure, being a liberal does predispose me to being more correct on moral issues

Deference to Authority is not moral. Authority is neutral in regards to morality, are you following the orders of the Southern Slaveholders of the 1800's or the community organizers who ran the Civil Rights era protests? Following Authority can be good and bad.

Harm is not neutral to morality. Harm is always bad, even in those calculations in which we are harming in order to reduce or prevent some greater harm it is still wrong to harm. When harming one can only be less bad.

In order to determine whether deferring to Authority is right or wrong you must consider greater principles, principles such as Harm.

None of the above is scientific argument. It is all rooted in your subjective feelings and preferences. As a "liberal", I largely share your values and reject obedience as having moral relevance, but I do not share what appears to be your moral objectivist notions. Moral objectivism is among the most silly notions there are, and among its many flaws it confuses the question of whether a moral position is "correct" (which is an unscientific value judgment) with whether something is a moral position at all (which is a scientific and specifically psychological issue). A moral is nothing but a psychological state of mind. It is the state of evaluating an action (or inaction) as being something that preserves or undermines what is desirable, and thus usually warranting some form of coercion to promote or inhibit those actions.

Yes, what authority one recognizes will determine what acts are disobedient is thus immoral. But people do not just differ in what authorities they recognize. They also differ in the extent to which they seek out and recognize authorities at all, and whether they view obedience to whatever authorities they recognize as a vital moral obligation. That is what is means to be an "authoritarian". It is a moral preference for creating and preserving hierarchical power structures, largely stemming from fear and anxiety about the disorder and uncertainty that clear chains of authority are designed to reduce. Note also that even when you examine the kinds of authorities that conservative recognize, they are the kind that are themselves very authoritarian and dictatorial and whose goal is to either preserve or create (depending on whether it already exists) clear imbalances of power via hierarchical systems. Of course, they also usually want systems where they or their identity group are at the top of that power structure. Thus, they can and do oppose other authoritarians and their authorities, but unlike a true liberal they are not opposing authoritarianism itself. Just look at parenting, which is a highly telling window into people's core social and political values. Conservative and liberal parents do not just differ in what they force their kids to do or believe. They differ in the degree to which the try to force them toward anything.

 

[fromderinside]

This all seems to be another touchy-feely (liberal) investigation confirming preset biases towards academically presumed preconditions for morality which really isn't objective at all. What is the basis for fair and why is structure not appropriate in determining morality? Fair is coin flip from cost benefits? Structure is is judgmental? Inquiring minds and all that.

 

[doubtingt]

This all seems to be another touchy-feely (liberal) investigation confirming preset biases towards academically presumed preconditions for morality which really isn't objective at all. What is the basis for fair and why is structure not appropriate in determining morality? Fair is coin flip from cost benefits? Structure is is judgmental? Inquiring minds and all that.

The research itself does not claim to say anything about what is or is not "appropriate" in determining morality. The research just shows differences in what liberals and conservatives feel is appropriate and relevant in determining morality. It is only your only personal subjective values that make it sound like they are being judgmental against conservatives. Conservatives don't feel bad about their use of structure and obedience to determine morality. That is the whole point. People feel bad when they violate their own principles and ethics. Conservatives have a somewhat different standard of ethics, so they do not feel bad. Your criticism of the research is like criticizing someone for pointing out that theists turn to God as the determinant of what is moral, as though theists would find that an insult. No, it is just a fact that they do that, and they do it because they think it is appropriate to do. You and I might take it as an insult to be told we turn to God's authority, but that is because we don't value authority and obedience as a source of morality.

People differ and many of the ways that they differ will happen to make some people "look bad" compared to others, according to some set of subjective value judgments. But that in no suggests that the claims about the factual differences between people are wrong or biased, just that the value judgments about those differences are biased, as all values, morality, and preferences inherently are.

This reminds me of my first study as a grad student. I was studying political ideology. I was showing that when people hear about someone doing something negative, conservatives are more likely to infer the cause is a stable trait within the person, while liberals are more likely to seek a context based cause of the behavior.
The ethics board were worried that if I told participants that this was the point of the study, it would make conservatives feel bad about themselves. They completely failed to grasp the whole point is that conservatives do this because their world view supports it as the smart and right thing to do, so pointing it out to them won't make them feel bad.

 

[Underseer]

Mods: I just realized this might be better placed in "politics"

This new study shows how conservatives and liberals differ in morality.


They had 1500 people respond 5 times per day for 3 days to randomly timed probes sent to them on their cell phones. Each of the 15 probes asked whether in the preceding hour, the person had committed, been the victim of, witnessed or heard about either a moral or an immoral act. They described the nature of each act.
Liberals and conservatives didn't differ in sensitivity or awareness of moral and immoral acts. But they did differ in the types of acts they offered as moral and immoral. Most of the acts reported by everyone dealt with either showing care for or causing harm to others. But the other acts is where the differences were. Liberals were more likely to report acts as immoral that involved being unfair, dishonest, or oppressive, and moral acts of being fair, honest, and protecting liberties. In contrast, conservatives were more likely to report immoral acts of being disloyal, subverting authority, or degrading something that should be sanctified. Conservatives reported moral acts were more likely to entail being loyal and honoring the sanctity of something.

The study is the first attempt to examine people's moral actions and moral judgments with real in-the-moment concrete events and experiences. But the findings converge with what is already known from survey type studies using more abstract descriptions or hypothetical events. Basically, conservatives are authoritarians who place more moral weight on obedience and conforming to norms and expectations, while liberals place more weight on acting oppressive, unfairly, or dishonestly toward others.

This is not news.

To conservatives and libertarians (who are completely different, but just happen to take the exact same positions on every issue except for recreational drugs and isolationism), anything that prevents or impedes the establishment of a new overclass to rule over us is immoral.

To liberals, returning to feudal-style rule by an overclass would be an immoral thing. Because we hate freedom.

 

[fromderinside]

This all seems to be another touchy-feely (liberal) investigation confirming preset biases towards academically presumed preconditions for morality which really isn't objective at all. What is the basis for fair and why is structure not appropriate in determining morality? Fair is coin flip from cost benefits? Structure is is judgmental? Inquiring minds and all that.

The research itself does not claim to say anything about what is or is not "appropriate" in determining morality. The research just shows differences in what liberals and conservatives feel is appropriate and relevant in determining morality. It is only your only personal subjective values that make it sound like they are being judgmental against conservatives. Conservatives don't feel bad about their use of structure and obedience to determine morality. That is the whole point. People feel bad when they violate their own principles and ethics. Conservatives have a somewhat different standard of ethics, so they do not feel bad. Your criticism of the research is like criticizing someone for pointing out that theists turn to God as the determinant of what is moral, as though theists would find that an insult. No, it is just a fact that they do that, and they do it because they think it is appropriate to do. You and I might take it as an insult to be told we turn to God's authority, but that is because we don't value authority and obedience as a source of morality.

I did't interposes my subjective views so why you attack along those lines doesn't seem relevant. My point is the study isn't about morality. It's about what some liberal chaps consider liberal and conservative construction of what they consider moral which is political not moral analysis. Where one comes by, what are, liberal and conservative views aren't really covered. Liberal bias, which is similar to mine, is found in the text.

This reminds me of my first study as a grad student. I was studying political ideology. I was showing that when people hear about someone doing something negative, conservatives are more likely to infer the cause is a stable trait within the person, while liberals are more likely to seek a context based cause of the behavior.
The ethics board were worried that if I told participants that this was the point of the study, it would make conservatives feel bad about themselves. They completely failed to grasp the whole point is that conservatives do this because their world view supports it as the smart and right thing to do, so pointing it out to them won't make them feel bad.

Wow. Am I reading the ethics board as reflecting Skinner and his clan in the seventies? When is feeling bad about what someone infers an ethical issue? the board seems to have had its priorities misplaced. I wonder how the board would treat conservative and liberals, both both black and white, considering images of blacks dangerous as dangerous?

Anyway the study misses the main issue, the effects of local environments with respect to one's moral concept of the world. See, I'd just rather work outside the individual or group. Makes me happy.

 

[Bomb#20]

... and they don't really care about fairness as a principle because ...

For the purpose of explaining away atheism, Christians have a lot of self-congratulatory put-downs to use on their outgroups too.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is only your only personal subjective values that make it sound like they are being judgmental against conservatives. Conservatives don't feel bad about their use of structure and obedience to determine morality. That is the whole point. People feel bad when they violate their own principles and ethics. Conservatives have a somewhat different standard of ethics, so they do not feel bad. Your criticism of the research is like criticizing someone for pointing out that theists turn to God as the determinant of what is moral, as though theists would find that an insult. No, it is just a fact that they do that, and they do it because they think it is appropriate to do.

Just like how Jews don't find it insulting to be told they simply have a different standard of ethics which they aren't violating by being money-grubbing cheats who think it is appropriate to eat Christian babies.

 

[zorq]

It is only your only personal subjective values that make it sound like they are being judgmental against conservatives. Conservatives don't feel bad about their use of structure and obedience to determine morality. That is the whole point. People feel bad when they violate their own principles and ethics. Conservatives have a somewhat different standard of ethics, so they do not feel bad. Your criticism of the research is like criticizing someone for pointing out that theists turn to God as the determinant of what is moral, as though theists would find that an insult. No, it is just a fact that they do that, and they do it because they think it is appropriate to do.

Just like how Jews don't find it insulting to be told they simply have a different standard of ethics which they aren't violating by being money-grubbing cheats who think it is appropriate to eat Christian babies.

I don't see where doubtingt used loaded and negatively charged words to describe the moral preferences of conservatives.

The following quote was to me the most controversial.

they don't really care about fairness as a principle because they believe in inherent inequalities in the worth of people.

The study shows that self identified conservatives regard obeying/respecting figures of authority as a moral obligation more than self identified liberals.
This explains the second half of the quote above because by valuing the opinions and public reverence of authority figures over the opinions and reverence of other people they have shown they believe that authority figures are more valuable.

The first half of the quote follows directly from this observation. When you regard two people as having different inherent value, you have instantly thrown fairness out the window.

To conservatives, fairness is balancing the scale with the shop keeper's thumb on one side. Fairness still factors in to their moral compass but they have to consider just how valuable the destitute panhandler of undesirable ethnic group A is compared to the rich career politician of desirable ethnic group B before they start evaluating what is a fair interaction between the two.

 

[Bomb#20]

Yes, what authority one recognizes will determine what acts are disobedient is thus immoral. But people do not just differ in what authorities they recognize. They also differ in the extent to which they seek out and recognize authorities at all, and whether they view obedience to whatever authorities they recognize as a vital moral obligation. That is what is means to be an "authoritarian". It is a moral preference for creating and preserving hierarchical power structures, largely stemming from fear and anxiety about the disorder and uncertainty that clear chains of authority are designed to reduce. Note also that even when you examine the kinds of authorities that conservative recognize, they are the kind that are themselves very authoritarian and dictatorial and whose goal is to either preserve or create (depending on whether it already exists) clear imbalances of power via hierarchical systems. Of course, they also usually want systems where they or their identity group are at the top of that power structure. Thus, they can and do oppose other authoritarians and their authorities, but unlike a true liberal they are not opposing authoritarianism itself.

That may be all very well for "true liberals", but it has little to say about the social democrats who are the great majority of Americans who call themselves "liberals". They differ from conservatives in what authorities they recognize, sure; but they equally view obedience to the authority they recognize as a vital moral obligation, just like conservatives do. They can and do oppose other authoritarians and their authorities, but they are not opposing authoritarianism itself -- they also usually want systems where they or their identity group are at the top of that power structure. When you examine the kinds of authorities that social democrats recognize, they are the kind that are themselves very authoritarian and dictatorial and whose goal is to either preserve or create clear imbalances of power via non-hierarchical systems; and "authoritarian" doesn't mean a moral preference for creating and preserving hierarchical power structures, just a moral preference for creating and preserving power structures.

It isn't conservatives making cheap light-bulbs and decently performing shower-heads illegal. It isn't conservatives telling bikers what to wear around their heads. It isn't conservatives banning me from selling my house unless I rip out my fence and put in a new one because my current fence conforms to the old code and they enacted a new code.

 

[Bomb#20]

I don't see where doubtingt used loaded and negatively charged words to describe the moral preferences of conservatives.

Do you see where you used loaded and negatively charged words to describe the moral preferences of conservatives?

 

[Bomb#20]

Sure, being a liberal does predispose me to being more correct on moral issues

Hey, can we help it if reality has a liberal bias?

Deference to Authority is not moral. Authority is neutral in regards to morality, are you following the orders of the Southern Slaveholders of the 1800's or the community organizers who ran the Civil Rights era protests? Following Authority can be good and bad.

Harm is not neutral to morality. Harm is always bad, even in those calculations in which we are harming in order to reduce or prevent some greater harm it is still wrong to harm. When harming one can only be less bad.

In order to determine whether deferring to Authority is right or wrong you must consider greater principles, principles such as Harm.

The trouble is, people are good at self-deception. Consequently, even though since you're human you probably form your moral judgments based on all the factors, if you subscribe to an ideology that praises some factors and denigrates others, then you'll probably believe you form your moral judgments based on only the praised factors. So judgments that people outside your ideology can easily recognize as based on factor X, you'll probably rationalize as based on factor Y, and be careful not to subject your judgment to too close an examination.

The opponents of GMOs are respecting the sanctity and purity of Nature, and passing it off to themselves as harm prevention. The OWS folks are attacking their outgroup out of ingroup loyalty, and passing it off to themselves as fairness. The people who demand recognition of Hamas on account of their having won an election are insisting on respect for authority, and passing it off to themselves as liberty. And they all think they're liberals. Are they?

 

[zorq]

I don't see where doubtingt used loaded and negatively charged words to describe the moral preferences of conservatives.

Do you see where you used loaded and negatively charged words to describe the moral preferences of conservatives?

... No I don't see it. Enlighten me.
unless you mean the shopkeeper analogy.