The difference between conservatives and liberals: the Moral Foundations Theory

[KD5NRH]

Libertarians actually score just like liberals, except they don't care much about care/harm.

This is interesting, since most/all of the Libertarians I know are quite loyal to those who treat them well, and respect the concept of sanctity as long as it is left to the individual to decide the means and degree of their own.  As for authority, most are quite open to the idea of voluntary submission to an authority on an individual level.  It's when the majority becomes or picks the authority without the individual having the ability to opt out that it becomes a problem.

[Scout26]

OP and Ted Talk stolen and FB'd.

[freakazoid]

This is an important one, I think, though I don't know if it raises to the level of "morality."

I have a VERY strong contrarian streak. If I know you are trying to influence me or, heaven forbid, force me to do something, I will often pick the opposite out of spite.*

I rather suspect that most of the individuals on this forum have that same inclination and that added dimension may help square differences between "liberals" and libertarians.




*(Unless, of course, you've convinced me that you (1) are concerned with my best interest and (2) have enough knowledge to know what is in my best interest. Being forthright about your actions helps in both regards.)

I have a friend who is really like that.

[RoadKingLarry]

Veterans benefits are an example of a social welfare program that conservatives generally support because it is perceived to be earned.  This is regarded as fair.

I don't really see veterans benefits as a "social welfare program".
Veterans benefits are not something that should be "perceived as earned" either.
They are in fact earned and in many, many cases prepaid for in blood.
To equate veterans benefits with welfare in any way is a disservice and a dishonor to veterans.

[makattak]

This is interesting, since most/all of the Libertarians I know are quite loyal to those who treat them well, and respect the concept of sanctity as long as it is left to the individual to decide the means and degree of their own.  As for authority, most are quite open to the idea of voluntary submission to an authority on an individual level.  It's when the majority becomes or picks the authority without the individual having the ability to opt out that it becomes a problem.

Yes, and liberals are VERY tribal people, as well- have you seen the nepotism in most liberal organizations?

[MechAg94]

I don't really see veterans benefits as a "social welfare program".
Veterans benefits are not something that should be "perceived as earned" either.
They are in fact earned and in many, many cases prepaid for in blood.
To equate veterans benefits with welfare in any way is a disservice and a dishonor to veterans.

Agreed.  However, for some reason, equating veteran's benefits and social welfare keeps coming up. 

[Pb]

I don't really see veterans benefits as a "social welfare program".
Veterans benefits are not something that should be "perceived as earned" either.
They are in fact earned and in many, many cases prepaid for in blood.
To equate veterans benefits with welfare in any way is a disservice and a dishonor to veterans.

Oh, I agree that they are not the same thing!  The reason I do is because I am conservative.  Conservatives supporting spending on causes like this usually, because we view it as earned ("karma").  We get outraged by people buying lobster with food stamps because we view it as unearned. 

That was the point I was trying to make.  Sorry if I put it inelegantly.

Liberals view the programs as basically the same because their idea of "fairness" is totally different.

[Perd Hapley]

Agreed.  However, for some reason, equating veteran's benefits and social welfare keeps coming up. 

That's because conservatives like to say things like "Nobody getting anything from the government should get to vote!" And then someone else says, "Oh, yeah, well I guess you don't want to veterans to vote." And then the first guy says, "That's not what I meant!" And so on.

[MechAg94]

Oh, I agree that they are not the same thing!  The reason I do is because I am conservative.  Conservatives supporting spending on causes like this usually, because we view it as earned ("karma").  We get outraged by people buying lobster with food stamps because we view it as unearned. 

That was the point I was trying to make.  Sorry if I put it inelegantly.

Liberals view the programs as basically the same because their idea of "fairness" is totally different.

Yet you still call it a "cause". 

Liberals seem to have a different views on what they will do with their own money versus Govt Money (taxpayers). 

[Ron]

He seems to make some interesting observations.

I wonder if he ever explores the underlying reason for the different emphasis and interpretation of the categories of morals?

My observation is that the reason conservatives have failed to conserve anything, especially in the realm of morality, is because they have adopted the same presuppositions or first principles as the progressives.

That makes conserving anything irrational, as the progressives are the ones following the presuppositions to the logical conclusions.


There is no rational floor or foundation to base a system of morality on so long as people continue to believe - deeply, reflexively, habitually and unconsciously - that we live in a dead and unconscious universe where everything that happens is either mechanically-caused or 'randomly' undirected - and 'just happened'; a universe which is going nowhere of relevance to humans, and has no meaning of relevance to humans; in which we know nothing and cannot really communicate with anybody or anything...  

Progressive culture/politics is the logical conclusion of a materialistic (in the philosophical sense) secular (non Christian) society.


*The italicized portion is a turn of phrase lifted from a blogger I read

[Firethorn]

I am certain that the creators of this theory are unbiased, and would never manipulate the theory and data to support a contention that conservatives are wonderful and liberals are scum.

Nobody is unbiased, but I'm hesitant at any explanation that is so 'simple'.  Or, to be blunt, both conservatives and liberals are complex and varied. 

But yes, Conservatives are generally better at imitating Liberals than Liberals are at imitating Conservatives.

Conservatives, when they do it, tend to invoke Poe's Law a lot.  (Parody mistaken as real)
Liberals, not all of them, but many, tend to make obvious and incorrect caricatures.

[Pb]

I'm the one who injected the biased examples, not Haidt.  Haidt is on the liberal side.

[MechAg94]

My observation is that the reason conservatives have failed to conserve anything, especially in the realm of morality, is because they have adopted the same presuppositions or first principles as the progressives.

That makes conserving anything irrational, as the progressives are the ones following the presuppositions to the logical conclusions.

My problem with observations like this is conserve what?  There are a million different things you could point to that prove or disprove point.  These days I am really not even sure if what I think you mean by conservative is what you mean.  That word has been stretched and mangled quite a bit in the last 20 years.

[Ron]

Yea, "conservative" is a reactionary term.

Conservative has come to mean not wanting change from the status quo or worse yet is frequently accused of being against "progress" as defined by the left.

[freakazoid]

But yes, Conservatives are generally better at imitating Liberals than Liberals are at imitating Conservatives.

Conservatives, when they do it, tend to invoke Poe's Law a lot.  (Parody mistaken as real)
Liberals, not all of them, but many, tend to make obvious and incorrect caricatures.

I think that comes from that in general we can at least see where they are coming from, even if we believe them to be wrong. They seem to really have no idea where we are coming from.

[Perd Hapley]

Conservative has come to mean not wanting change from the status quo or worse yet is frequently accused of being against "progress" as defined by the left.

Hasn't "conservative" always meant "resistant to change"?

Allowing the left to define "progress" and "liberalism" is an ongoing problem; perhaps one of the biggest problems. "Conservatives" (me included) perennially urge that we stop calling the left "liberals," but most conservatives keep doing it. Or if we do stop calling them liberals, we substitute the word "progressive," as if it were somehow better to let the Backward Party bear that standard, too.

[lee n. field]

Nobody is unbiased, but I'm hesitant at any explanation that is so 'simple'.  Or, to be blunt, both conservatives and liberals are complex and varied. 

But yes, Conservatives are generally better at imitating Liberals than Liberals are at imitating Conservatives.

Conservatives, when they do it, tend to invoke Poe's Law a lot.  (Parody mistaken as real)
Liberals, not all of them, but many, tend to make obvious and incorrect caricatures.

The more I contemplate this, the more complicated I think the real picture is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation#Structural_differences

Many g00gle hits seem to be one side congradulating themselves.  But, self-identified liberals tend to have a smaller amygdala?  Hmm.

[Perd Hapley]

The more I contemplate this, the more complicated I think the real picture is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_orientation#Structural_differences

Many g00gle hits seem to be one side congradulating themselves.  But, self-identified liberals tend to have a smaller amygdala?  Hmm.

Isn't the conservative capacity for disgust discussed in Haidt's book?

Is the self-congratulation coming from the Left, thinking this makes them more evolved? It could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on their part. They're inured to filth, like someone accustomed to life under squalid conditions.

[roo_ster]

Isn't the conservative capacity for disgust discussed in Haidt's book?

Is the self-congratulation coming from the Left, thinking this makes them more evolved? It could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on their part. They're inured to filth, like someone accustomed to life under squalid conditions.

I tend to think a closer analogy would be a cult or organization where one of the acts defining members--against outsiders--is the consumption or participation with/in something that trips non-members' sense of disgust.  Historical examples include the consumption of rotting meat, touching/reveling in feces and the anus, killing/harming another human for no reason other than to bind the killer to the group, rehearsals / practicing the consumption of poison--symbolic/fake until the Allotted Time--at the behest of a leader, and so on. 

[lee n. field]

Isn't the conservative capacity for disgust discussed in Haidt's book?

I've watched the TED talk, perused the research website he mentions in that talk.  I've not read the book, and at this point may or may not ever get to it.

A well developed sense of disgust has survival value.

Is the self-congratulation coming from the Left, thinking this makes them more evolved? It could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on their part. They're inured to filth, like someone accustomed to life under squalid conditions.

[Pb]

Isn't the conservative capacity for disgust discussed in Haidt's book?

Is the self-congratulation coming from the Left, thinking this makes them more evolved? It could just as easily be interpreted as a lack of sensitivity on their part. They're inured to filth, like someone accustomed to life under squalid conditions.

Yes, it falls under Sanctity/degradation.  Haidt discusses incest in detail as an example.  Conservatives oppose incest no matter what.  Liberals will eventually agree incest is ok as long as no one gets "hurt."