Values

[Marvin the Martian]

CO (don't forget to try the True Grit Cafe) questioned the idea that liberals values empathy more and conservatives order. So here are some references to the concept, which we can discuss.

Empathy

There is an interesting chart at this page that shows liberal/conservative and reactions to differing values. Conservatives score high on authority (order) and liberals score higher on fairness. Haidt also discusses them in his Ted Talk.

I think we see the social order aspect in the threads on immigration. Conservatives point out that first and foremost, the law is being broken. But then there are often mentions throughout such discussions that there are different languages and values with immigrants. In fact, conservatives here have often spoken as to other countries like Japan and Norway being much less diverse and that's why they lack some social ills we have. Why does diversity cause mass shootings, or higher medical prices (two areas I have seen it mentioned).

Conservatives tend to see the world as a more hostile place, and again posts here bear this out. Here is a story on the concept.

Pew asked people what values were most important to teach kids, liberals rated empathy far higher than conservatives and conservatives rated obedience higher.
Researchers have known that danger makes even liberals more conservative. Interesting that they found a way to make conservatives more liberal. When asked to envision themselves flying before answering a question (not in a plane, just flying), conservatives answered questions more liberally.

CO mentioned Burke. I don't think Burke or any other philosopher has much impact. What percentage of Americans does anyone think has really read Burke, Hobbes, or anyone else?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I think what's most important about Haidt's analysis is that it demonstrates that our politics are at least partly determined by values. I.e., if we value fairness above all else, that will tend to push us more to the left, but if we value order above all else, that will tend to push us more to the right.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I think what's most important about Haidt's analysis is that it demonstrates that our politics are at least partly determined by values. I.e., if we value fairness above all else, that will tend to push us more to the left, but if we value order above all else, that will tend to push us more to the right.

A couple brief comments.

I don’t think we can separate liberals and conservatives by examining values. The values are pretty similar.

Describing the liberal/conservative differences here is difficult. But if I was forced to do that, I’d say the line of demarcation would be between chaos and stability. liberals tend to favor social chaos and conservatives tend to favor social stability. Thus the French and American revolutions comparison. There is a lot of nuance on this point.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

A couple brief comments.

I don’t think we can separate liberals and conservatives by examining values. The values are pretty similar.

Describing the liberal/conservative differences here is difficult. But if I was forced to do that, I’d say the line of demarcation would be between chaos and stability. liberals tend to favor social chaos and conservatives tend to favor social stability. Thus the French and American revolutions comparison. There is a lot of nuance on this point.

Anarchists might value chaos, I do not think liberals do. Liberals just do not value order as highly as conservatives. It is more important that someone be allowed to marry who they love than it is to maintain an existing order.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Anarchists might value chaos, I do not think liberals do. Liberals just do not value order as highly as conservatives. It is more important that someone be allowed to marry who they love than it is to maintain an existing order.

I'm honestly flabbergasted that you continue to reply to this poster as though what he posts is in good faith. You are smarter than this.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I think what's most important about Haidt's analysis is that it demonstrates that our politics are at least partly determined by values. I.e., if we value fairness above all else, that will tend to push us more to the left, but if we value order above all else, that will tend to push us more to the right.

Any examination like this also depends on what definition gets placed on words. When reading through the links "fairness" was the word that I often had the most issue with. They took what I would consider the "liberal" definition of what "fair" means and then say that liberals care more about the world being "fair". Well, I do not think it is "fair" necessarily to take from someone, against their will, who has earned more and give it to someone who has not. A conservative would say it is "fair" to keep what you have earned.

What these studies would call "fear", I would call foresight. Does the ant "fear" winter and thus work harder than the grasshopper to prepare for it or does the ant know it is coming eventually and thus prepare for it? That is not fear in my book, it is wisdom.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I'm honestly flabbergasted that you continue to reply to this poster as though what he posts is in good faith. You are smarter than this.

Both of them are posting in “good faith” in this thread. They’re actually having a reasonable discussion free of name calling and personal attacks. You should delete your post for being irrelevant to the thread and inappropriate.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Any examination like this also depends on what definition gets placed on words. When reading through the links "fairness" was the word that I often had the most issue with. They took what I would consider the "liberal" definition of what "fair" means and then say that liberals care more about the world being "fair". Well, I do not think it is "fair" necessarily to take from someone, against their will, who has earned more and give it to someone who has not. A conservative would say it is "fair" to keep what you have earned.

What these studies would call "fear", I would call foresight. Does the ant "fear" winter and thus work harder than the grasshopper to prepare for it or does the ant know it is coming eventually and thus prepare for it? That is not fear in my book, it is wisdom.

And if that is all there is to it. Is it fair someone is born into a billionaire family and can live their life doing squat living on investments while someone born to nothing works two jobs 80 hours a week to just squeak by? I don't think ants and grasshoppers have inheritances do they? Are ants of a slightly different color than the rest of the colony discriminated against or seemingly shot far more often by the police ants or receive harsher court sentences? And while the ants make a good comparison, note they are ruled by a total dictator with no individual rights.

 

[IUCrazy2]

And if that is all there is to it. Is it fair someone is born into a billionaire family and can live their life doing squat living on investments while someone born to nothing works two jobs 80 hours a week to just squeak by? I don't think ants and grasshoppers have inheritances do they? Are ants of a slightly different color than the rest of the colony discriminated against or seemingly shot far more often by the police ants or receive harsher court sentences? And while the ants make a good comparison, note they are ruled by a total dictator with no individual rights.

And your reaction to my post is the same type of umbrage that I often take on these psychological studies. The way that researchers approach the topic is colored by their own biases. You took my post that I felt was a defense of my position as an offensive against yours. My real point is that there is no set standard for what constitutes "fair". You cannot value fairness more than I do because we cannot even agree on what fair is.

And Marvin, you took umbrage at my definition of fairness. I did not disparage yours, however, the mere fact that I could look at fairness differently somewhat annoyed you (or at least your response left me with that perception). And I think there is a big lesson here in that too. Having your viewpoint framed in a manner that you do not believe is a true representation of your belief and then having that misinterpretation be used to "attack" you (even if no "attack" was intended) causes some not so nice responses.

I am not going down the path of all of your questions because that derails this thread. I have answers or a philosophy on them but we have that argument all over this board. I would much prefer that we stay on track of abstractly discussing the causes of the divide as opposed to the minutiae.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Anarchists might value chaos, I do not think liberals do. Liberals just do not value order as highly as conservatives. It is more important that someone be allowed to marry who they love than it is to maintain an existing order.

Radicals have always been liberals. I don’t know about anarchists; I think they have elements of both.

I didnt use the chaos/stability comparison intending to argue the extremes. This is a continuum. Reasonable people reside in the middle. I think the midpoint would separate liberals and conservatives.

You bringing same sex marriage into the debate is instructive. I don’t think being for or against that tells us who is liberal or conservative in the classical meaning of those ideas. I think you are injecting fundamental Christian beliefs into the discussion. As I’ve have said often, they are not conservative in the classical sense and they tend to be more liberal in how they see the role of government and authority.

In your example a liberal I think is more apt to march, carry signs and demand immediate authoritative action, a conservative is more apt to discuss it at a family and community level bringing along action from the bottom up.

Another tell in the difference between liberals and conservatives is how we view change. To suggest conservatives oppose change is not accurate. The process of change is the important part. A generalization might be conservatives are slower and deliberate. Liberals are hasty and irregular.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Another tell in the difference between liberals and conservatives is how we view change. To suggest conservatives oppose change is not accurate. The process of change is the important part. A generalization might be conservatives are slower and deliberate. Liberals are hasty and irregular.

To continue my point above, if one of the liberals would approach this viewpoint and flip it, I think that would be interesting. This is how CoH views the liberal response, hasty and irregular. He views the conservative as slower and deliberate. I view the former as more negative characteristics and the latter as more favorable. I think there is terminology that could be used that would probably cause a different response.

So on just that one piece, Marvin or Goat, what words would you use to describe the liberal and conservative positions?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

And your reaction to my post is the same type of umbrage that I often take on these psychological studies. The way that researchers approach the topic is colored by their own biases. You took my post that I felt was a defense of my position as an offensive against yours. My real point is that there is no set standard for what constitutes "fair". You cannot value fairness more than I do because we cannot even agree on what fair is.

And Marvin, you took umbrage at my definition of fairness. I did not disparage yours, however, the mere fact that I could look at fairness differently somewhat annoyed you (or at least your response left me with that perception). And I think there is a big lesson here in that too. Having your viewpoint framed in a manner that you do not believe is a true representation of your belief and then having that misinterpretation be used to "attack" you (even if no "attack" was intended) causes some not so nice responses.

I am not going down the path of all of your questions because that derails this thread. I have answers or a philosophy on them but we have that argument all over this board. I would much prefer that we stay on track of abstractly discussing the causes of the divide as opposed to the minutiae.

You might say it is in how fairness is defined, but when asked "rank in order the values "fairness", "order", "loyalty", and others, conservatives put fairness farther down the list than liberals do. So let me ask this, define fairness how you will, which is more important for a society, fairness or order? Why would that question be biased?

 

[iu_a_att]

Any examination like this also depends on what definition gets placed on words. When reading through the links "fairness" was the word that I often had the most issue with. They took what I would consider the "liberal" definition of what "fair" means and then say that liberals care more about the world being "fair". Well, I do not think it is "fair" necessarily to take from someone, against their will, who has earned more and give it to someone who has not. A conservative would say it is "fair" to keep what you have earned.

What these studies would call "fear", I would call foresight. Does the ant "fear" winter and thus work harder than the grasshopper to prepare for it or does the ant know it is coming eventually and thus prepare for it? That is not fear in my book, it is wisdom.

Haidt is actually a Trump supporter...if that matters. The point of his research is not to define fair as, say, fairness in outcomes versus fairness in process but rather to distinguish a concern for fairness from other concerns. As Haidt says, what distinguishes liberals and conservatives is NOT that liberals care about fairness/equality or care/harm while conservatives don't. His point is that liberals are WEIRD (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democratic) and so have a jaundiced moral sense that weights ONLY those concerns. Conservatives are not WEIRD and also care about In-group Loyalty, Respect for Authority and Purity.

I wouldn't call ANY of these concerns real values as they are not the product of any kind of systematic reasoning. Rather it is proper to think of these as moral predispositions or tastes.

A conservative does not always say it is fair to keep what you earned, by the way. A conservative says that someone who outranks you in the social hierarchy may demand a share of what you earned and you are morally obligated to give it. A conservative says that you should make sacrifices that help your in-group.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You might say it is in how fairness is defined, but when asked "rank in order the values "fairness", "order", "loyalty", and others, conservatives put fairness farther down the list than liberals do. So let me ask this, define fairness how you will, which is more important for a society, fairness or order? Why would that question be biased?

I think order and fairness are interrelated. I think that fairness is derived from order. I value order because I think it invariably leads to fairness. Order constrains the caveman tendencies (if I want what you have, I bonk you on the head and take it and my days are spent protecting mine from someone trying to bonk me) and sets up the rules. Order allows for people with different viewpoints and from different tribes to cooperate together in ways that can be mutually beneficial. Order says that if you do work, you will be compensated for that work. And that is "fair". Order allows that if we disagree on our social contract, that there are methods to resolve that disagreement outside of violence.

I also realize that there are other types of order that are not as desirable. But that is why we have a sliding scale for these items.

The question itself is not biased. The interpretation of the answers and how those answers are used to describe someone is often biased. If I view the correct answer as "order", then my description of those who choose "fairness" is probably going to be less flattering. I think this was discussed in one of your links. It provided a favorable and negative view for each side. I often see the negative connotations being assigned to the conservative position and the positive to the liberal. I think that is because of the biases of those interpreting the data.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Radicals have always been liberals. I don’t know about anarchists; I think they have elements of both.

I didnt use the chaos/stability comparison intending to argue the extremes. This is a continuum. Reasonable people reside in the middle. I think the midpoint would separate liberals and conservatives.

You bringing same sex marriage into the debate is instructive. I don’t think being for or against that tells us who is liberal or conservative in the classical meaning of those ideas. I think you are injecting fundamental Christian beliefs into the discussion. As I’ve have said often, they are not conservative in the classical sense and they tend to be more liberal in how they see the role of government and authority.

In your example a liberal I think is more apt to march, carry signs and demand immediate authoritative action, a conservative is more apt to discuss it at a family and community level bringing along action from the bottom up.

Another tell in the difference between liberals and conservatives is how we view change. To suggest conservatives oppose change is not accurate. The process of change is the important part. A generalization might be conservatives are slower and deliberate. Liberals are hasty and irregular.

A whole lot of conservatives, not Christian conservatives but conservatives, opposed gay marriage. How do I know that? Had everyone not a Christian Conservative voted for gay marriage it would have passed. There are no where near 51% of elected officials who are Christian Conservative.

The issue is the handful of times this subject comes up you have us chopping the head off Marie Antoinette. I won't defend the excesses of the French Revolution except to say there is a world of difference in the two revolutions. American colonists were not really mistreated, they had pretty much the exact same rights as the average Englishman. Our biggest grievance was taxation, and from England's standpoint someone had to pay for the French and Indian War. The French people, the masses, were much more mistreated. If one kicks a dog often enough, it just might bite them. I'll agree it was a horrible experience after the revolution and filled with atrocities. An apt comparison is the South in 1859. They were exceedingly fearful of a servile resurrection. And the reason was simple, they had mistreated the slaves so poorly they knew the slaves would seek revenge if given a chance.

 

[IUCrazy2]

A conservative does not always say it is fair to keep what you earned, by the way. A conservative says that someone who outranks you in the social hierarchy may demand a share of what you earned and you are morally obligated to give it. A conservative says that you should make sacrifices that help your in-group.

Of course they don't. A liberal does not always say that you should have to have the exact same as everyone else either. I am being overly simplistic to illustrate a point.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

To continue my point above, if one of the liberals would approach this viewpoint and flip it, I think that would be interesting. This is how CoH views the liberal response, hasty and irregular. He views the conservative as slower and deliberate. I view the former as more negative characteristics and the latter as more favorable. I think there is terminology that could be used that would probably cause a different response.

So on just that one piece, Marvin or Goat, what words would you use to describe the liberal and conservative positions?

His wording is off, designed to make liberals look worse, "hasty and irregular" would never be seen as a positive trait.But I think that is covered in one of the links, if not I have seen it elsewhere. Conservatives value tradition more than liberals. Doing something simply because it has always been that way resonates more with conservatives. I don't know that it is a bad trait, or a good trait, just not a shared trait. As a result, we seem rash and you seem to hate change.

Frankly, this is one both sides are needed. On large social issues where the only reason a bad policy is kept is "it's always been this way", we need to make the change. Just because our parents and their parents were wrong is no reason to continue a bad policy. Look at the civil rights struggle for an excellent example. I would put in gay marriage. But on smaller issues, we need slower change, time for people to adjust. Society does require some order. I would put in changing to the metric system here. We should do it frankly, but it would be stupid to do it tomorrow.

 

[IUCrazy2]

His point is that liberals are WEIRD (Western Educated Industrial Rich Democratic) and so have a jaundiced moral sense that weights ONLY those concerns. Conservatives are not WEIRD and also care about In-group Loyalty, Respect for Authority and Purity.

Based on that definition, I am both. I am Western, I am educated (Masters degree), I am industrial, I am "rich" when compared to most of the world, and I am Democratic (not in party but in principle...one man, one vote etc.)

I also value the other things. Purity in morals. Respect for authority (when earned), and loyalty (to friends, family, country, etc.). I think most of us would view ourselves in those terms if pressed.

 

[IUCrazy2]

His wording is off, designed to make liberals look worse, "hasty and irregular" would never be seen as a positive trait.But I think that is covered in one of the links, if not I have seen it elsewhere. Conservatives value tradition more than liberals. Doing something simply because it has always been that way resonates more with conservatives. I don't know that it is a bad trait, or a good trait, just not a shared trait. As a result, we seem rash and you seem to hate change.

Frankly, this is one both sides are needed. On large social issues where the only reason a bad policy is kept is "it's always been this way", we need to make the change. Just because our parents and their parents were wrong is no reason to continue a bad policy. Look at the civil rights struggle for an excellent example. I would put in gay marriage. But on smaller issues, we need slower change, time for people to adjust. Society does require some order. I would put in changing to the metric system here. We should do it frankly, but it would be stupid to do it tomorrow.

Both are needed. This is like a marriage, you have arguments with your wife but usually you can settle them. There are things you can do that sabotage your marriage when these differences occur. I think this country is doing quite a bit of that lately (sabotaging the marriage).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You might say it is in how fairness is defined, but when asked "rank in order the values "fairness", "order", "loyalty", and others, conservatives put fairness farther down the list than liberals do. So let me ask this, define fairness how you will, which is more important for a society, fairness or order? Why would that question be biased?

That ranking is not instructive. I think it is mostly worthless as a means of figuring out liberal and conservative values, if that is even possible. A better metric would be to ask people to describe their values without the leading suggestion about which values.

In terms of your point, (which I don’t think is helpful) I would say adherence to some social order produces the most fairness for all. It’s not so much a ranking issue as it is a cause and effect issue.

 

[iu_a_att]

Based on that definition, I am both. I am Western, I am educated (Masters degree), I am industrial, I am "rich" when compared to most of the world, and I am Democratic (not in party but in principle...one man, one vote etc.)

I also value the other things. Purity in morals. Respect for authority (when earned), and loyalty (to friends, family, country, etc.). I think most of us would view ourselves in those terms if pressed.

Haidt would say that you are a conservative precisely because you value those other things. Like you, Haidt is both descriptively WEIRD and conservative. I am both descriptively WEIRD and liberal. I don't respect authority that is undeserved, I don't value what I see as some false notion of purity and I see other people as just as deserving as my friends, family and country. Thus being WEIRD correlates with liberalism but does not determine it.

There are several interesting messages to take from Haidt. First, there is a great deal more variance in ethical predispostions than most of us think. Second, the correlation between economic/physical security on the one hand and ethical predispositions on the other hand that is suggested by the WEIRD classification suggests that our values are very much a product of our circumstances. But, on the other hand, some of these differences are no doubt due to early childhood environment (see the stressors we have talked about in many other threads) as well as interactions with genetic factors. Third, we should not conflate these ethical predispositions with actual ethics. Fourth, most of us start from our predispositions and, like attorneys, come up with logical rationalizations that justify our predispositions as moral. Maybe there are more. I think Haidt is a pretty interesting starting place to think about how people are actually (as opposed to philosophically) ethical.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In terms of your point, (which I don’t think is helpful) I would say adherence to some social order produces the most fairness for all. It’s not so much a ranking issue as it is a cause and effect issue.

Social order does not seem to impact fairness. Use Jim Crow laws. Those were in place to enforce the existing social order but they were hardly fair by any standard I can come up with. Hence I guess your use of "some". But then we get into a great grey area, what is "some" and who determines what makes up the "some".

 

[VanPastorMan]

CO (don't forget to try the True Grit Cafe) questioned the idea that liberals values empathy more and conservatives order. So here are some references to the concept, which we can discuss.

Empathy

There is an interesting chart at this page that shows liberal/conservative and reactions to differing values. Conservatives score high on authority (order) and liberals score higher on fairness. Haidt also discusses them in his Ted Talk.

I think we see the social order aspect in the threads on immigration. Conservatives point out that first and foremost, the law is being broken. But then there are often mentions throughout such discussions that there are different languages and values with immigrants. In fact, conservatives here have often spoken as to other countries like Japan and Norway being much less diverse and that's why they lack some social ills we have. Why does diversity cause mass shootings, or higher medical prices (two areas I have seen it mentioned).

Conservatives tend to see the world as a more hostile place, and again posts here bear this out. Here is a story on the concept.

Pew asked people what values were most important to teach kids, liberals rated empathy far higher than conservatives and conservatives rated obedience higher.
Researchers have known that danger makes even liberals more conservative. Interesting that they found a way to make conservatives more liberal. When asked to envision themselves flying before answering a question (not in a plane, just flying), conservatives answered questions more liberally.

CO mentioned Burke. I don't think Burke or any other philosopher has much impact. What percentage of Americans does anyone think has really read Burke, Hobbes, or anyone else?

Why didn't Obama change the law that caused the split up of families? He had two years with the House and the Senate and did nothing. Now, Trump has signed an Executive Order to fix it, but still calls for Congress to act. Why doesn't Congress just change the law so it fits the President's Executive Order? This way the kids and parents get to stay together while the legal stuff (asylum) gets worked out.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Why didn't Obama change the law that caused the split up of families? He had two years with the House and the Senate and did nothing. Now, Trump has signed an Executive Order to fix it, but still calls for Congress to act. Why doesn't Congress just change the law so it fits the President's Executive Order? This way the kids and parents get to stay together while the legal stuff (asylum) gets worked out.

Can you point to the exact law that requires families to be split? Once you do that you will see the issue.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Social order does not seem to impact fairness. Use Jim Crow laws. Those were in place to enforce the existing social order but they were hardly fair by any standard I can come up with. Hence I guess your use of "some". But then we get into a great grey area, what is "some" and who determines what makes up the "some".

I dunno. The social order of a supermarket checkout line is fair. I’ve been so fair as to allow people with fewer items to purchase cut in front of me, and other folks have done the same for me. Social order doesn’t always mean government imposed order—at least that isn’t how conservatives view the relationship of government with our social structure.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Both of them are posting in “good faith” in this thread. They’re actually having a reasonable discussion free of name calling and personal attacks. You should delete your post for being irrelevant to the thread and inappropriate.

No, they aren't. Marvin is trying to discuss the topic. CO is trying to ignore the topic in order to explain why liberals suck. A lack of personal insults does not good faith make.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

most of us start from our predispositions and, like attorneys, come up with logical rationalizations that justify our predispositions as moral

Very true. I don’t think this is a particularly astounding point. I think this is pretty much how ethics and morality works in general. That isn’t to say that our predispositions are engraved in granite. Our learned moral code always evolves at least on the fringes.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No, they aren't. Marvin is trying to discuss the topic. CO is trying to ignore the topic in order to explain why liberals suck. A lack of personal insults does not good faith make.

I disagree, but the people having the conversation make that call.

 

[iu_a_att]

Very true. I don’t think this is a particularly astounding point. I think this is pretty much how ethics and morality works in general. That isn’t to say that our predispositions are engraved in granite. Our learned moral code always evolves at least on the fringes.

The astounding point is that most people are entirely unaware that they aren't thinking at all and are instead spouting crap that persuades nobody of anything. I agree this is how most people think "ethics and morality works in general". But real ethics and morality are not merely the jackleg rationalizations of our crappy inner attorneys. They are, instead, a dialogue between thinking and feeling. Real ethics and morality bind us to a course of action despite our feelings not because of them.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I disagree, but the people having the conversation make that call.

I was in the conversation. CO's assholish post that Marvin took seriously was a direct response to me.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The astounding point is that most people are entirely unaware that they aren't thinking at all and are instead spouting crap that persuades nobody of anything. I agree this is how most people think "ethics and morality works in general". But real ethics and morality are not merely the jackleg rationalizations of our crappy inner attorneys. They are, instead, a dialogue between thinking and feeling. Real ethics and morality bind us to a course of action despite our feelings not because of them.

What do you mean by jackleg rationalizations and crappy inner attorneys? Rationalizing the outside world with the contents of our minds is what we all do all the time. I totally agree dialogue and communication are vital for acquiring knowledge and evolution of our moral code. You seem to say that morals are objective and not the result of feelings. I think it is the exact opposite. There are times when our feelings said logic conflict and we must come to a course of action that are seemingly inconsistent. Or at times we have conflicting morals. This is cognitive dissonance. My best personal example is abortion. I believe life begins at conception and I believe in choice. Any thoughtful person will have these conflicts.

 

[VanPastorMan]

Can you point to the exact law that requires families to be split? Once you do that you will see the issue.

It was that case back in 97. I think it was the Flores case which stated that you can't detain children more than 20 days. So if a Dad is applying for asylum, then it takes more than 20 days. The law is what splits families up, not Donald Trump. Now Trump did this Executive Order saying the children can still with their detained parents. I heard on the radio that he might get sued over it because this is not what the Flores case or decision said.

 

[iu_a_att]

What do you mean by jackleg rationalizations and crappy inner attorneys? Rationalizing the outside world with the contents of our minds is what we all do all the time.

I mean that our rationalizations that easily justify our emotional predispositions as actual ethics or moral are often crap. They are incoherent, not well thought out, and unpersuasive to anyone who doesn't share our predisposition already. They aren't really ethics or morality

I totally agree dialogue and communication are vital for acquiring knowledge and evolution of our moral code. You seem to say that morals are objective and not the result of feelings. I think it is the exact opposite. There are times when our feelings said logic conflict and we must come to a course of action that are seemingly inconsistent. Or at times we have conflicting morals. This is cognitive dissonance. My best personal example is abortion. I believe life begins at conception and I believe in choice. Any thoughtful person will have these conflicts.

I don't say nor do I think that ethics and morals are not uncovered in the dialogue between emotions and reasons. But for a dialogue to be real it must be that each side brings something to the table. Your example of abortion might be a good one, I think, for how this real dialogue plays out. There is an emotional push that leads one way but that gets tempered by reason that leads another. Ethics and morality tie you to the mast, as it were, and allow you to navigate between two sirens of temptation: emotions on the one hand and anodyne reason on the other.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I was in the conversation. CO's assholish post that Marvin took seriously was a direct response to me.

I reread every post and the assholish post I read wasn’t written by him.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I reread every post and the assholish post I read wasn’t written by him.

Perhaps you missed the nuance.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It was that case back in 97. I think it was the Flores case which stated that you can't detain children more than 20 days. So if a Dad is applying for asylum, then it takes more than 20 days. The law is what splits families up, not Donald Trump. Now Trump did this Executive Order saying the children can still with their detained parents. I heard on the radio that he might get sued over it because this is not what the Flores case or decision said.

You have it, a court made a ruling. How can Obama change that.

 

[NPT]

No, they aren't. Marvin is trying to discuss the topic. CO is trying to ignore the topic in order to explain why liberals suck. A lack of personal insults does not good faith make.

That's because you're reading stuff into his posts that isn't there.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That's because you're reading stuff into his posts that isn't there.

No, I'm really not. But whatever. If someone gets some enjoyment out of engaging him, that's their business.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I mean that our rationalizations that easily justify our emotional predispositions as actual ethics or moral are often crap. They are incoherent, not well thought out, and unpersuasive to anyone who doesn't share our predisposition already. They aren't really ethics or morality

I’m still not understanding your point. All of us have preconceptions. All of us hold biases. All of us have opinions. This is what our minds are. Without this we aren’t thinking. All of us constantly apply those preconceptions, biases and opinions to the outside world and bring them into accord with new information. This is the process of rationalization. That process may or may not be reasonable or agreeable to you. I don’t think this process is often crap, incoherent or not well thought out. It could be that, but there is nothing inherent in the process of rationalization that makes it so.

Suggesting that another’s preconceptions are crap because you don’t share them is in itself crap. This brings me to a point I have often tried to discuss and that point is the beauty of Socratic type discussion. That is how we should test preconceptions, not by yelling “crap”!

 

[iu_a_att]

I’m still not understanding your point. All of us have preconceptions. All of us hold biases. All of us have opinions. This is what our minds are. Without this we aren’t thinking. All of us constantly apply those preconceptions, biases and opinions to the outside world and bring them into accord with new information. This is the process of rationalization. That process may or may not be reasonable or agreeable to you. I don’t think this process is often crap, incoherent or not well thought out. It could be that, but there is nothing inherent in the process of rationalization that makes it so.

Suggesting that another’s preconceptions are crap because you don’t share them is in itself crap. This brings me to a point I have often tried to discuss and that point is the beauty of Socratic type discussion. That is how we should test preconceptions, not by yelling “crap”!

We are speaking of ethics and morality here, not the law or social convention or something else that makes one have to justify oneself to another person. Thus, the dialogue I am talking about is a dialogue with oneself. I claim that most people, consistent with Haidt, start from their emotional/ethical intuition. Then, rather than have a dialogue with themselves, their figurative jackleg inner lawyer chimes in with some more or less bogus "rationale" that "justifies" calling their intuition moral. I say that is moral intuitionism rather than ethical or moral reasoning. True ethical and moral reasoning is the result, at least, of an inner dialogue in which our emotional intuitions are tested against the values we can actually clearly articulate to ourselves. The result is, like in the example of your thinking about abortion, emotion tempered by reason and vice versa.

We may both put ourselves through such a rigorous process of reflection and, nevertheless, come out with a different answer. There are, in fact, true moral dilemmas and people disagree about what should be done in such cases. My complaint is not with those who disagree about what is ethical or moral. My complaint is that what many think of as moral or ethical reasoning is simply no such thing.