Comments on: Morals Authority

By: Springfield Reformer

Springfield Reformer — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:07:43 +0000

All in all, a very helpful article. It is, however, old ground, to some extent. Natural law theory has long contended that moral commonalities such as those identified exist among us because moral truth is inherent in the shared experience of living. Not everyone agrees as to what fairness entails, but all agree that fairness as a principle exists and should be used in the ethical calculus. The problem with recognizing such commonalities is that they tend to admit the allegedly irrational belief in a universal moral order, with the notion of deity stepping softly behind. I for one am not uncomfortable with that.

As for the last comment on dissent versus patriotism as contradictory sentiments, as a patriot, I must respectfully dissent. The position that these are irreconcilable opposites assumes that one cannot be loyal and disloyal at the same time. That may be true, but only if the object of the emotion is identical in both instances. For those conservatism Americans who saw the incessant undermining of Bush as disloyal, the object of loyalty was some conception of the successful defense of America as both a group and an idea, the paradigm of individual liberty and opportunity.

For these same Americans to turn around and express extreme dissent with the economic policies of the Obama Administration is in fact a continuation of that same loyalty to the same American idea, and is even directed to the benefit of the group, which is seen as being threatened as to it’s essential character by said administration, which is the true object of disloyalty (or non-loyalty).

Thus there can be circumstances where a more nuanced analysis will show there is no conflict of principle, that ordinary people, unwashed as they are, still have a remarkable way of deducing a coherent ethical response in a complex situation. Yet another argument for natural law, and against oversimplification.

By: William Fell

William Fell — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:57:43 +0000

I suggest the author listen for a few hours to Limbaugh and his clones, then judge what the differences between conservatives and liberals are.I consider conservatives to be ignorant dupes or intelligent dupers. George W Bush won his time on the throne because of hatred, pure and simple.The GOP would never have won if the South had not switched to that party because of racism. Why are conservatives against intellectuals, climate change theory, etc.

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 16:21:04 +0000

So Jon what else is new?

By: Brett Barndt

Brett Barndt — Mon, 11 May 2009 02:22:00 +0000

Great article and glad to know more of this research is going on. I’ve seen similar in other places. The big issues is however, that Socrates (‘fairness/reciprocity’,'harm/care’)vs Callicles (‘in-group/loyalty’, ’sanctity/purity’, ‘authority/respect’ for “big tough men”) conflict clearly shows what values were proven best for a prosperous well-functioning society. Or “good society” as you mention in the article. These are not the values of ‘in-group loyalty’ or ’sanctity/purity’ or ‘authority/respect’ but rather ‘fairness/reciprocity’ and ‘harm/care’. Suppressing individual abilities of strong tough guys to dominate and control others was the way toward a democratic society that give equal rights and access to everyone. The “in-group” loyalty example you use with Guantanamo and torture can equally be seen as a threat to “in-group” values the US has long held, the Constitution, Habeus Corpus (denied under George III and a major impetus for revolution), and the whole spirit of the Enlightenment. These allegedly ‘conservative’ values so openly held by so many represent a threat from within. A threat caused by a distinct memory lapse of the central tenets of Western Culture that, when applied in the US for the first time in history, led to the greatest social transformation and paved the way to greater prosperity for more than any other “in-group/loyalty” , or “sanctity/purity” driven system ever did. Also, important to ask the question why upwardly mobile or upper-middle-class kids value ‘fairness/reciprocity’ or ‘harm/care’ when the lower economic status kids are stuck in a more brutal Callicles inspired world, playing out in their lives, as well as maybe in their heads. They certainly aren’t demanding ‘fairness/reciprocity’, or ‘harm/care’ for themselves from their current politicians. Maybe there is a connection there worth exploring about the conditions of our current democracy, and ‘equity/fairness’, ‘harm/care’ maybe not be equally distributed now, and so they play it out in a more defensive stance, rather than demanding change from their Congressional Representatives and Supreme Court Justices. For that reason perhaps, ‘fairness/reciprocity’ or ‘harm/care’is the exclusive domain of those with access to quality education and more of life’s riches.

By: Anonymous User

Anonymous User — Mon, 04 May 2009 21:44:50 +0000

In almost every issue I find an article that is really thought provoking. But where do I go next? I’m a retired academic, how about giving two or three suggested readings, rather than haiving us search trhough Google Scholar or ERIC or whatever? I’d appreciate it, more importantly, I suspect so would a lot of other readers.

By: Dana Dana

Dana Dana — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:25:25 +0000

En Em says that conservatives have no morals and want to kill people. That is the problem right there. And yes, there are conservatives who sincerely believe that liberals are evil.Haidt should write about how this relates to other cultures. The west is the only place that is liberal. Western conservatives are liberal by the standards of every other part of the world. People value their families, their nation/race/ethnic group, their religion, their traditions, their honor. They way that most western liberals think is foreign to them. It would not be possible for instance, for a christian to immigrate to a majority muslim country and build a church and convert people to his religion. It is unthinkable. Many hundreds of millions place great emphasis on purity, the purity of their religion and the purity of their women. To have a daughter come home and say I am pregnant is something they cannot conceive of. Yet here, a conservative like Sarah Palin cannot prevent her daughter from having sex. And she can’t punish her for it either. For hundreds of millions the idea of not having a God or making fun of religion is horrible. They will punish those who do it by killing them. This is how people live. It is the west that for some reason took a different turn. Haidt should clarify what a liberal is. A person who says I prefer the Taliban to the US is not a liberal. Yet we often think that being anti american or liking Cuba or Iran is a sign of liberalism. It will be interesting to see how the increasing “diversity” of the west changes the culture. Will the non western comers become more liberal or will we become like them? Something will change, that much is certain.

By: Lenny Robinson

Lenny Robinson — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 04:48:07 +0000

This article evokes much potential for discussion, if not debate, on a great many issues. I am impressed with how ultimately meaningless distinctions-conservative verses liberal-still take center stage in public discourse. People don’t shoot people in churches or schools or neither did they burn crosses or paint racists or anti-gay objections because they are politcally correct, right or left bank. Hatred comes from the corruption of the human condition which is essentially a spiritual/moral depravity.

By: Vincent Westerband

Vincent Westerband — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 00:04:24 +0000

Here’s the problem.People on the far right, want people to slavishly follow authority without making any questions. They are not opposed to using violence, they tend to by much more racist, religiously inclined, and tend to use religious doctrine to replace facts and standard education.What’s more, the leaders of their party, who tend to actually be well educated, affluent people, take full advantage of the mental weakness, and authoritarian mindsets of the people who follow them.Not just my words. Look up Bob Altemeyer’s: The Authoritarians. What’s more, they have been other studies that back up Mr. Altemeyer’s 40 year study. That’s right, a Forty Year professional study in just the type of behavior your describing.So, it’s not just about viewpoints. It’s about which groups tend to use their mental faculties to understand social situations, and which groups tend to have an actual functioning moral structure.Authoritarians don’t usually have a functional set of morals. They do what their leaders tell them, no questions asked. Those leaders can be a political group, a religious institution, or a corporate entity. The bigger, and more powerful, the better. The way they consider something right or wrong is if they leaders tell them if it’s right or wrong.When you consider that their leaders are the likes of Limbaugh, Rove, Hannity, Buchanan, O’Reilly, and others like them, who’ve been known to recommend violence against (even murder, in the case of Michael Reagan, Ron Reagan’s adopted son), or imprisonment of liberals (you can deny it, but remember, it’s been recorded, broadcasts, and shown to the world), then you have to wonder:Just how moral people on the far right actually are?By the way, Anyone want to talk about those church shootings, and the rise of right wing extremist white supremacist groups while we’re at it…… because I would just love to hear your take on that. After all, they’re just rational people expressing their viewpoints…. Right?At least, that’s what you guys claim.Me. I know better.This report of yours is not exactly honest. It tries to paint something rather evil, into something that isn’t quite so bad.I have to wonder what your motivations are.

By: En Em

En Em — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:21:25 +0000

“Liberals and conservatives, he insists, inhabit different moral universes”. I disagree. There is Only One Morality just as there is only one Reality.Let me quote the definition of Morality from the Objectivist philosophy: “What is morality, or ethics? It is a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions—the choices and actions that determine the purpose and the course of his life. Ethics, as a science, deals with discovering and defining such a code”.”The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is: Why does man need a code of values?”Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?The Objectivist philosophy will never stoop to ask questions that border on fantasy and the improbable, questions like “How would you react if a family ate the body of its pet dog, which had been accidentally run over that morning?”. And then philosophy “enthusiasts” wonder why life has no meaning.

By: Derek Maddox

Derek Maddox — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:49:29 +0000

This was a very interesting article. As a conservative, I’m not sure I totally agree with the author’s application of the five basic moralities to my political or moral positions. To my mind, the overwhelming driving force in conservatism (as opposed to religious fundamentalism, which many progressives confuse and conflate with conservatism) would be fairness/reciprocity. We view as unjust the taking of profit, gains, and property from one individual to give it to another. The real reason for my comments, though, comes from one line of the article that rang out like a gong: “Republicans’ tendency to blindly follow their leader proved disastrous over the past eight years.” If this is the author’s interpretation of Haidt’s work, it shows that he totally missed the point. If they’re Haidt’s own words, then it points out a glaring inconsistency in his application of his own research. If Haidt’s research is accurate (and I’m not really sure it is) then Republicans weren’t blindly following anyone. They were being true to their own moral compass, a compass shared more by Bush than by Gore or Kerry. We aren’t acting out of ignorance or foolishness, as many liberals and progressives would portray us, but out of carefully reasoned application of our own moral and philosophical purposes.