The difference between liberals and conservatives
An interesting article by psychologist Jonathan Haidt, a self-described moderate liberal, regarding why sometimes it seems just plain old impossible for liberals and conservatives to understand each other.
According to Haidt (and Graham), we base our sense of morality on five general areas: Compassion, fairness, loyalty to "your group", authority, and a sense of "purity". Haidt and Graham's research suggests that the liberal judgement of whether an action is "moral" is based strongly on whether it meets the standard for the first two criterias - compassion and fairness. However, conservatives take all five into account.
This would appear to explain why, for instance, many conservatives will argue against the legalization of gay marriage and back up their arguments with factors such as what the Bible says (authority), that it would "erode the institution of marriage" (authority/loyalty to "your group"), and that it just "isn't right" (purity). And why many liberals feel that such arguments are not worth considering.
(Libertarians - such as myself - don't really fit cleanly into these categories, although I suspect "we" are similar to liberals in our moral thinking.)
Haidt has also given an interview in which he expounds on his findings. I personally find some of the arguments he made in this interview to be troubling - for instance, he says this about certain cultural practices we usually find abhorrent:
"BLVR: OK, but why is it that we can critique apartheid South Africa whereas we can’t critique a culture that uses genital mutilation where chastity and fidelity of females is considered a high virtue? What makes us able to do one and not the other?
JH: You have to look at any cultural practice in terms of what goods it is aiming for. Veiling, or keeping women in the home, is usually aimed at goods of chastity and modesty. Not all human practices are aimed at moral goods. Sweatshops, child pornography, child slavery, the slavery of Africans in the American South-none of these is aimed at goods provided by any of the four foundations. These are just people hurting and exploiting others for their personal monetary benefit."
Yeah, like the slavery of blacks has never been said to be necessary to the well-being of the social order, even by some "progressives"! Or apartheid for that matter. This also carries the troubling implication that it's "the thought that counts" when deciding public policy.
After all, slavery wasn't wrong because the enslavers sought nothing but their personal benefit. It was, and is, wrong because it violated a basic human right: The right to live your own life and determine your own destiny how you see fit as long as you do not harm others. Same goes for Jim Crow, apartheid in South Africa and so forth. Even if it can be proven conclusively that enslaving blacks, for instance, is good for society in general, that still would not justify it because of this simple fact of a basic human rights violation.
Despite this faux pas, Haidt's work has much of value in it. In my time I have only seen too many ad hominem attacks flung from both the left and the right, with each side accusing the other of being: Heartless (by the left), self-hating (by the right) or complete morons (by both). Haidt claims that liberals have to acknowledge where conservatives are coming from. I agree, but I also hope that his research may help liberals and conservatives to come to more of an understanding of each other.
At least of the fact that they're not necessarily jerks or idiots for believing what they do.
P.S. For the record, I am dead-on for the legalization of gay marriage. I don't see it as being any threat to the social order whatsoever, personally.
According to Haidt (and Graham), we base our sense of morality on five general areas: Compassion, fairness, loyalty to "your group", authority, and a sense of "purity". Haidt and Graham's research suggests that the liberal judgement of whether an action is "moral" is based strongly on whether it meets the standard for the first two criterias - compassion and fairness. However, conservatives take all five into account.
This would appear to explain why, for instance, many conservatives will argue against the legalization of gay marriage and back up their arguments with factors such as what the Bible says (authority), that it would "erode the institution of marriage" (authority/loyalty to "your group"), and that it just "isn't right" (purity). And why many liberals feel that such arguments are not worth considering.
(Libertarians - such as myself - don't really fit cleanly into these categories, although I suspect "we" are similar to liberals in our moral thinking.)
Haidt has also given an interview in which he expounds on his findings. I personally find some of the arguments he made in this interview to be troubling - for instance, he says this about certain cultural practices we usually find abhorrent:
"BLVR: OK, but why is it that we can critique apartheid South Africa whereas we can’t critique a culture that uses genital mutilation where chastity and fidelity of females is considered a high virtue? What makes us able to do one and not the other?
JH: You have to look at any cultural practice in terms of what goods it is aiming for. Veiling, or keeping women in the home, is usually aimed at goods of chastity and modesty. Not all human practices are aimed at moral goods. Sweatshops, child pornography, child slavery, the slavery of Africans in the American South-none of these is aimed at goods provided by any of the four foundations. These are just people hurting and exploiting others for their personal monetary benefit."
Yeah, like the slavery of blacks has never been said to be necessary to the well-being of the social order, even by some "progressives"! Or apartheid for that matter. This also carries the troubling implication that it's "the thought that counts" when deciding public policy.
After all, slavery wasn't wrong because the enslavers sought nothing but their personal benefit. It was, and is, wrong because it violated a basic human right: The right to live your own life and determine your own destiny how you see fit as long as you do not harm others. Same goes for Jim Crow, apartheid in South Africa and so forth. Even if it can be proven conclusively that enslaving blacks, for instance, is good for society in general, that still would not justify it because of this simple fact of a basic human rights violation.
Despite this faux pas, Haidt's work has much of value in it. In my time I have only seen too many ad hominem attacks flung from both the left and the right, with each side accusing the other of being: Heartless (by the left), self-hating (by the right) or complete morons (by both). Haidt claims that liberals have to acknowledge where conservatives are coming from. I agree, but I also hope that his research may help liberals and conservatives to come to more of an understanding of each other.
At least of the fact that they're not necessarily jerks or idiots for believing what they do.
P.S. For the record, I am dead-on for the legalization of gay marriage. I don't see it as being any threat to the social order whatsoever, personally.