Agnostic.com

11 2

Five Foundations of Morality in America (Jonathan Haidt)

When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following considerations relevant to your thinking?

  • Whether or not someone was harmed [harm] ;
  • someone acted unfairly [reciprocity] ;
  • someone did something to betray his or her group [group loyalty] ;
  • the people involved were of the same rank or status [authority] ;
  • someone did something disgusting [purity]

Liberals tend to focus exclusively on "harm" and "reciprocity", whereas conservatives include all five elements in their moral reasoning.

Matias 8 July 21
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

11 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

"whereas conservatives include all five elements in their moral reasoning." ?

Is this a jonathan haidt opinion?

JacarC Level 8 July 22, 2018
1

I have Jonathan Haidt’s book, 'The Righteous Mind,' which I’ve marked up extensively, and I’ve watched most of his YouTube videos, including his TedTalks. To help clarify, the elements of Haidt’s moral matrix are as follows:

  • Harm/Care
  • Liberty/Oppression (found in The Righteous Mind, but not in his TedTalk)
  • Fairness/Reciprocity
  • Loyalty/Betrayal (or In-group/Loyalty)
  • Authority/Subversion (or Authority/Respect)
  • Sanctity/Degradation (or Sanctity/Purity)
    In 'The Righteous Mind,' Haidt states that Liberals most value elements 1, 2 and 3, while Libertarians are strong on 2 and 3 only, and Conservatives, as you indicated, value all 6. However, according to Haidt’s research (as presented in his TedTalk), these value differences are hardly unique to the US, and cross cultures and continents.

The important question, in my opinion, relates not to the differences between Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives, but whether or not the three unshared (i.e., Conservative) values are, in fact, legitimate moral imperatives. What, after all, may be universally judged to be moral about loyalty, authority and purity? I am not the first to assert that the foundation of all morality rests on two, and only two, pillars: Reciprocity and Empathy, the precursors of which may be observed in other primates.

@Matias What on Earth are you going on about? Please, clarify.

@Matias I believe what you're referring to is tribalism, which all primates engage in. My point is that I disagree with Haidt here in that this behavior is not a moral principle.

@Matias Fair enough.

0

Based on your bio, you're based on Germany. Are you an expat?

@Matias I asked first because I wanted to be sure. Now my next question is, why does a German is interested into mapping this particular five points on to liberals and conservatives? When you say that, which nationality are you referring to?

@Matias my question is that I want to understand if you're asking regarding Germany or US, precisely because they are not the same. You didn't specify that. If you are asking about Germany then I can tell you flat out that I don't have an opinion because I can not even pretend to know because I don't live there.

1

The basis for my moral code -- and decision-making -- is the principle of minimum violation of human dignity and respect, and minim damage of human and environmental well=being. I think that more than covers your questions.

@Matias It is utter nonsense to say, "A concept like 'human dignity; is unknown in other cultures." Buddhism, which began about 500 before Christ is based on human dignity. Your ignorance is dangerous.

@Matias People are people, and they understand personal dignity as surely as pain, regardless of how it is defined by a person or religion. Your reply is about semantics; thus, it says nothing about my point. Your ignorance is dangerous.

@Matias Christianity might be a continuation of Buddhism, which existed about 500 years before Christ. I agree that the two have similar ethics, and some Christians are also Buddhists.

I don't think you are uneducated. Rather, you seem blinded by belief. Like your statement about Buddhism being founded on empathy, which I agree. However, empathy is an emotion that we feel when people are treated unfairly. Denying a person human dignity elicits empathy. Siddhārtha became Buddha because he saw people suffering (denied dignity in life).

Christ died for sinners, so God, who punishes sinners, would forgive them. Except, blacks, LBGQT, and others are denied respect and dignity.

1

I have long suspected there is a methodological fly in Haidt's ointment (please forgive the biblical reference). He seems to be peculiarly selective in just exactly what he tests, and what he doesn't. I respect his work as far as it goes, but I don't think it tells the whole story.

For example, Harm care and Fairness reciprocity are, to me, unconditional. There are virtually no circumstances under which the potential recipient would not morally deserve those two considerations. Again for me, Ingroup loyalty, Authority respect, and Purity sanctity are strictly conditional. They are, in other words, deserved when they are deserved, but they aren't always deserved.

If a group I am a member of is planning to commit a crime, they have lost the moral claim to my loyalty. If my President commits treason, he no longer deserves to have me respect his authority (potential resemblance to any real circumstance is purely coincidental). And there is no moral sanctity deserved when the purity in question is racial, for example.

Maybe the real difference between liberal and conservative morality is which group of concerns are considered unconditional and which conditional. Please forgive my bias, but it seems to me that, in general, conservatives are more likely to feel that loyalty, respect, and purity are unconditional, but you deserve only as much fairness or healthcare as you can afford. It's conditional upon whether you earned it.

I haven't read everything Haidt has written, but some, and have watched a lot of his videos, and have never heard him address this gap in his studies.

skado Level 9 July 21, 2018

This is an excellent thought which I find helpful in clarifying the difference in priorities.

0

In MY opinion, conservatives do NOT give consideration to "people" in any way. Conservatives are interested in economics and finance ONLY. It's all about the money, baby. How their policies affect "people" is of little concern to them. Again, just my opinion based on my interpretation of what I see conservative policies are and do. Your mileage will vary.

0

I do not find the above very informative or compelling. If that is from some survey or study it seems time wasted to me. Following are my personal opinions.

Law are in theory there to benefit the population. The questions seem to me to be negative ones. I would prefer a positive approach.
Did help people? If so how did it help?
Handing out charity can actually be a destructive thing.
Sometimes charity is needed but simply handing someone a ten dollar bill may not actually help them.
There is also the difference between the laws of a nation and morality. Laws are in theory made to benefit the population of the land. Morality is a more personal matter. Morality can have its bad or negative part. It can be neutral neither harming or helping anyone. It can be positive in that it does help all parties involved.

What the government does is a community matter. What I do is my responsibility and I am the one who must live with the consequences of my actions, legal or moral.

2

I take issue with the notion that conservatives are somehow more "moral" than liberals, or anyone else for that matter.
My experiences and observations have been the complete opposite.

I also tend to reject these types of 'pronouncements' as frequently false and
usually in service to an agenda.
This is another reason I have little use for philosophy.

Hear, Hear.

@Matias Again, I disagree. Particularly regarding "group loyalty".
From my own observations, I've seen the liberal mindset of "group loyalty" encompassing a much larger group than anything conservatives may consider to be their group. Liberals are more likely to consider the whole of humanity to be their "group". Whereas conservatives have much smaller, more personalized, groups.
If you (or Haidt) want to argue that conservatives have more elements that comprise their "moral intuitions" than liberals, or even moderates (which I consider myself to be), I'll take the opposing viewpoint, all day long.

@KKGator This raises the question about Antifa and can it really be classed as liberal? Could we say it is a liberal organisation established on conservation values?

@brentan I honestly don't know enough about Antifa to classify it as anything other just another organization that is pissing off conservatives. I'm not a joiner. I have little use for most organizations.

1

Sorry to disgree. I find conservatives to give lip service to the ones you ascribe to them, but not practice them. Do as I say, not as I do. Good at practicing hypocrisy.

t1nick Level 8 July 21, 2018
1

We would be better off if we didn’t make moral judgments at all IMO.

1

Very interesting, I only gravitated to the first two!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:136390
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.