These six categories from this article reminded me of another article I saw recently. "The Elephant in America’s Room: How Moral Psychology Explains Our Political Civil War"
> Haidt identified several distinct “moral foundations” that operate like taste receptors for moral concerns:
Care/harm: Sensitivity to suffering and the need to protect the vulnerable
Fairness/cheating: Concerns about equality, proportionality, and reciprocity
Loyalty/betrayal: Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group
Authority/subversion: Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition
Sanctity/degradation: Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual
Liberty/oppression: Resistance to domination and restriction of freedom
Great.
> Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group > Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition > Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual
Here's where it all falls apart.
Who decides "group" membership? Why is hierarchy and tradition so often allowed to violate the other "morals", even within the "group"? WTF is "contamination"?
It's so easy to see the latter "morals" are just tools for tyrants. The former "morals" exclude them outright, so why does anyone accept them as being part of the same "foundation"? When I see people doing that, I feel the urge to "protect the vulnerable". I clearly see how they're giving up their equality and freedom to liars, cheats and thieves that will betray the group whenever it benefits them.
It's frustrating as hell.
The "group" should simply be "everyone", except the would-be tyrants. Guess some people just want that submissive life.
it's as if the study put our political spectrum as an a priori set of truths, rather than symptomatic of the strong cultural sway what i consider to basically be the sources of social evil has. the power and prevalence of wrongful ideology does not make it moral.
In general. looking for solutions in Psychology is as dead end as it can be. Propaganda and incentives determine values and knowledge, propaganda being the prime mover, it provides the excuses for skewed incentives.
Talking about knowledge - how smart one is means little without true knowledge, which is sorely lacking in the so called "humanities". Without it, the "people with higher cognitive ability" are simply "garbage in - garbage out" generators. Well, a study of garbage can't result in anything other than garbage.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_the_moral_roots_of_...
But yeah, I don't just do what I'm told. Got kicked out of heaven for it.
If you have the spare energy maybe you’ll question the pre-built moral framework and thus diverge from it. (Or if the framework is insane in some important way as many moral frameworks have been throughout time —consider “Why can’t I own a Canadian”)
People who can’t or don’t want to put in the effort follow all the rules. Thoughtful people figure out the rules they think are important to follow and how to live safely while ignoring the dumb ones.
That is definitely not matching my experience and observations.
Also there is absolutely no way to meaningfully assess ethics of a person with a standardized questionnaire.
Then I assume your experience and observation finds no correlation. If you're claiming a negative correlation, that's the same "meaningless" assessment the article makes, just based on anecdotal evidence, instead of a questionnaire.
throwawaysleep•7mo ago
Those three just seem to mean religion.
delichon•7mo ago
bluefirebrand•7mo ago
I think tradition is generally a good way to build bonds in society
A society without social traditions is going to be a very atomic society and I think that is kinda bad
Yes, historically most social traditions were based in religion but they don't have to be imo. We have to find ways to build strong social connections in other ways
Strong social connections are extremely important. United we stand, Divided we fall
ajdjcbxjxnx•7mo ago
> but they don't have to be imo
Are there any historical examples you’ve seen of this working? ie a society not binding over race / religion?
I’ve come to terms with religion being necessary, even if I don’t prescribe to it. I benefitted heavily from growing up in a white, christian european society even though I rebelled against it.
And after personally seeing good candidates (everyone passed them with highest marks) get turned down for jobs because they were white/asian males, it really opened my eyes to the whole world being tribal and I was the one tricked into thinking an alternative was possible.
I still like to think it’s possible, but I don’t see evidence for it.
bluefirebrand•7mo ago
I'm not widely studied enough on History to say that this has never happened, but I think you're right. I am not aware of any
Maybe it is not actually possible without religion, but I like to think that people can find a strong set of shared cultural and social values without the metaphysical aspect of religion
kgwxd•7mo ago
That's just basic, bi-directional, human decency, it's not the "loyalty" they're talking about. They're talking blind devotion, under any and all circumstance. The "superior" can do no wrong. "Loyalty" isn't even the right word for that, but they'll use it anyway, just like they hijack "morality".
Same with "tradition". They're talking about the king raping every woman before marriage. Seppuku from anyone that fails to meet their demands. People with "higher cognitive abilities" aren't seriously resistant to the annual potluck.
The "purity" thing is just disgusting on it's face. Would love to see someone try to defend that idea here.
This isn't a matter of cognitive ability. Even small children easily recognize, and resist, these abuses of power, until it's beaten out of them.
There's an accurate name for the people that hold these "morals", it's "submissive".
If you still don't see a conflict, perhaps you did actually mean that you value a kind of uni-directional loyalty, but good luck getting much of it without at least 1 other form of power. Theism is a highly effective tool, that's why so many powerful, self-proclaimed atheist, that are seeking more and more power, eventually "convert" anyway. It comes with a huge bag of free rubes.
jacknews•7mo ago
The clue is probably in the title 'moral foundations'.
Some tradition, loyalty and authority might be good, or even required for society to function, but they don't define 'goodness' to me, just 'conformity'.
Take for example FGM. Are people who follow that tradition, accede to authority that dictates it, and loyal to it's tenets, 'good'?