Difference between revisions of "2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→Haidt: morality: a bit more about "disgust") |
(→Haidt concludes: addendum - the elephant Haidt smuggled in) |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Analysis== | ==Analysis== | ||
[[category:commentary]][[category:!article]] | [[category:commentary]][[category:!article]] | ||
| − | === | + | ===Introduction=== |
| − | + | From a rational perspective, [[../|this]] is a truly awful piece of writing. I [[#Appendix: Catalogue of Irrationalities|count]] at least eight [[straw men]], two [[appeals to guilt]], three counts of [[demonizing]] (albeit subtle), four unsupported claims, and five counts of what I can only think of as "shell gaming". | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | From a rational perspective, this is a truly awful piece of writing. I count at least eight [[straw men]], two [[appeals to guilt]], three counts of [[demonizing]] (albeit subtle), four unsupported claims, and five counts of what I can only think of as "shell gaming". | ||
As a piece of neoconservative propaganda, it is splendid; it ''almost'' makes sense, and if you are being told what you already want to believe, you'll be happy to ignore the fast moves necessary to make it appear true – and you are now armed with a new collection of seemingly-devastating "facts" to throw at liberals. The bit of science Haidt throws in as a doorstop to let his emotional pleas through is just icing on the cake. | As a piece of neoconservative propaganda, it is splendid; it ''almost'' makes sense, and if you are being told what you already want to believe, you'll be happy to ignore the fast moves necessary to make it appear true – and you are now armed with a new collection of seemingly-devastating "facts" to throw at liberals. The bit of science Haidt throws in as a doorstop to let his emotional pleas through is just icing on the cake. | ||
| Line 28: | Line 22: | ||
Aside from the repeated "halo" swipe, he seems to be getting back on firmer ground: where have Democrats gone wrong in being persuasive to those more inclined to vote Republican? Republicans, says Haidt, want their argument [[interpretive framing|framed]] in terms of ''[[morality]]'' -- so we need to have a better understanding of what that is. | Aside from the repeated "halo" swipe, he seems to be getting back on firmer ground: where have Democrats gone wrong in being persuasive to those more inclined to vote Republican? Republicans, says Haidt, want their argument [[interpretive framing|framed]] in terms of ''[[morality]]'' -- so we need to have a better understanding of what that is. | ||
| − | === | + | ===Morality=== |
First, Haidt rejects the idea that morality is solely about "how we treat each other", citing as examples ancient "rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom". This makes some rather questionable assumptions: | First, Haidt rejects the idea that morality is solely about "how we treat each other", citing as examples ancient "rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom". This makes some rather questionable assumptions: | ||
* That these laws were considered "morals" (rules which most people agreed were "right") at the time, rather than just "laws" (rules which people felt compelled to obey) | * That these laws were considered "morals" (rules which most people agreed were "right") at the time, rather than just "laws" (rules which people felt compelled to obey) | ||
| Line 47: | Line 41: | ||
* '''"a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner"''': There are all kinds of flaws with this as an example supporting Haidt's point. First of all, some cultures ''do'' eat dog meat (what was that about liberals believing "that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies", Dr. Haidt?). People in such cultures are probably familiar with the proper preparation of such meat, and would therefore know how to do it safely. Their culinary practices have been through the filter of long experience with dog meat, and so are more likely to be safe than those some American suburban family which is used to buying USDA-inspected Grade A meat from the store. | * '''"a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner"''': There are all kinds of flaws with this as an example supporting Haidt's point. First of all, some cultures ''do'' eat dog meat (what was that about liberals believing "that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies", Dr. Haidt?). People in such cultures are probably familiar with the proper preparation of such meat, and would therefore know how to do it safely. Their culinary practices have been through the filter of long experience with dog meat, and so are more likely to be safe than those some American suburban family which is used to buying USDA-inspected Grade A meat from the store. | ||
| − | Most (how many?) of the respondents agreed that the actions were "morally wrong" although "nobody was harmed". (Is it really fair to say that "nobody was harmed" in a hypothetical example where the risks aren't even discussed? Would | + | Most (how many?) of the respondents agreed that the actions were "morally wrong" although "nobody was harmed". (Is it really fair to say that "nobody was harmed" in a hypothetical example where the risks aren't even discussed? What if someone got sick or died because the dog meat wasn't cooked properly? Would liberals claim there was nothing wrong with driving a child-filled schoolbus at 90 MPH towards a cliff as long as you slam on the brakes in time to prevent it from actually going over, because after all "nobody was harmed"? Also, Haidt is using a rather narrow definition of "harm" here, and not one which is consistent with the liberal position.) |
In any case, Haidt draws the following conclusions: | In any case, Haidt draws the following conclusions: | ||
| Line 63: | Line 57: | ||
Haidt would have us believe that this equation is not subject to rational analysis. Anyone who says that is automatically suspect, because what do you do when different people reach different "non-analyzable" conclusions? What is the rule here -- if it's an institution, then it is sacred and inviolable? Would Haidt agree, then, that the institution of [[al Qaeda]] should be left alone, because "it works for them"? How about the Mafia? | Haidt would have us believe that this equation is not subject to rational analysis. Anyone who says that is automatically suspect, because what do you do when different people reach different "non-analyzable" conclusions? What is the rule here -- if it's an institution, then it is sacred and inviolable? Would Haidt agree, then, that the institution of [[al Qaeda]] should be left alone, because "it works for them"? How about the Mafia? | ||
| − | Nor do liberals always decide in favor of the individual, any more than conservatives invariably favor institutions | + | Nor do liberals always decide in favor of the individual, any more than conservatives invariably favor institutions: |
| + | * Who was upset when the Gingrich Congress dismantled the [[Office of Technology Assessment]]? | ||
| + | * Who was upset when Bush kept passing laws which decimated the [[US Constitution|Constitution]] (surely a "group binding" document if there ever was one), and when the [[109th US Congress|109th Congress]]'s violations of customary procedure thoroughly gutted the effectiveness of that institution? | ||
| + | * Which political party has spent the last 25 years trying to decimate the federal government, an essential institution upon which all but the richest of us ultimately depend for our safety and well-being? (Hint: not liberals or Democrats.) | ||
These are all matters of disagreement ''which can be resolved by rational discussion'' of the various merits and costs – to society and to individuals – of each possible action. | These are all matters of disagreement ''which can be resolved by rational discussion'' of the various merits and costs – to society and to individuals – of each possible action. | ||
| Line 72: | Line 69: | ||
<blockquote>When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist."</blockquote> | <blockquote>When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist."</blockquote> | ||
* '''they err''': he doesn't show how, unless he's referring to his misrepresentations of liberalism's view of morality. What explanations is he referring to, and how are they wrong? | * '''they err''': he doesn't show how, unless he's referring to his misrepresentations of liberalism's view of morality. What explanations is he referring to, and how are they wrong? | ||
| − | * '''elitist''': Anyone frequenting [[En Tequila Es Verdad|this blog]] should know that we wear that label proudly. If "[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitism elitism]" is rule by an elite, and "[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elite elite]" is "a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence", I don't see anything so terrible about that -- as long as the "elite" rise to | + | * '''elitist''': Anyone frequenting [[En Tequila Es Verdad|this blog]] should know that we wear that label proudly. If "[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elitism elitism]" is rule by an elite, and "[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/elite elite]" is "a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence", I don't see anything so terrible about that -- as long as the "elite" rise to their "position" by ''merit'' rather than by some sort of class or in-group system. |
| − | Now, remind me: which ideology is it that favors, [[5 pillars of morality|according to Haidt]], in-group loyalty? Which ideology is it whose [[Leo Strauss|philosophical father]] argued that the "unwashed masses" can't be trusted to rule wisely and that rule can only be trusted to a secret elite, and whose leaders and pundits describe democracy using phrases like "[[Thomas Jefferson/misquotes|mob]] [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNkNzNhZDA2ODMzNGVlZmM3YmI5NmNiNWUxNDUyZDI= rule]" and "[http://thesunnews.typepad.com/opinionblog/2009/04/democracy-invites-tyranny-of-the-majority.html tyranny of the majority]"? | + | Now, remind me: which ideology is it that favors, [[5 pillars of morality|according to Haidt]], in-group loyalty (such as "good old boy" networks and [[K Street Project|exclusionary manipulative tactics]])? Which ideology is it whose [[Leo Strauss|philosophical father]] argued that the "unwashed masses" can't be trusted to rule wisely and that rule can only be trusted to a secret elite, and whose leaders and pundits describe democracy using phrases like "[[Thomas Jefferson/misquotes|mob]] [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmNkNzNhZDA2ODMzNGVlZmM3YmI5NmNiNWUxNDUyZDI= rule]" and "[http://thesunnews.typepad.com/opinionblog/2009/04/democracy-invites-tyranny-of-the-majority.html tyranny of the majority]"? |
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
But how can Democrats learn to see – let alone respect – a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb? | But how can Democrats learn to see – let alone respect – a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb? | ||
</blockquote>Moreover, why should they do so? Let's see if Haidt addresses that as we continue. | </blockquote>Moreover, why should they do so? Let's see if Haidt addresses that as we continue. | ||
| − | === | + | ===in India=== |
Haidt then describes in some detail his visit to India, the take-away from which seems to be "OMG, people with rigid customs and other ideas I was brought up to despise can be nice people!" He also got used to the idea that lower-caste people didn't necessarily want to be emancipated – or even spoken to politely, if that wasn't part of the rules. | Haidt then describes in some detail his visit to India, the take-away from which seems to be "OMG, people with rigid customs and other ideas I was brought up to despise can be nice people!" He also got used to the idea that lower-caste people didn't necessarily want to be emancipated – or even spoken to politely, if that wasn't part of the rules. | ||
| Line 87: | Line 84: | ||
* Did Haidt stop to wonder whether the lower-caste Indians who served him were ''content'' in their role, or merely ''fearful of reprisal'' if they stepped out of it? | * Did Haidt stop to wonder whether the lower-caste Indians who served him were ''content'' in their role, or merely ''fearful of reprisal'' if they stepped out of it? | ||
* Assuming they are content, how does this apply to his American examples -- where women ''want'' to be liberated and in control of their reproductive organs, where most people ''want'' the option of choosing (or being free from) religion, and where children ''want'' to be treated decently? | * Assuming they are content, how does this apply to his American examples -- where women ''want'' to be liberated and in control of their reproductive organs, where most people ''want'' the option of choosing (or being free from) religion, and where children ''want'' to be treated decently? | ||
| − | * Part of the [[authoritarian]] bargain which American authoritarians seem to forget whenever it suits them is this: in exchange for unquestioning obedience and support of his followers, the authoritarian leader must guarantee the safety and well-being of those followers in a manner that is clearly superior to what they could expect from society at large. If Indian servants are truly happy to continue as servants (rather than fearful of the consequences of trying to break away from that system), it can only be because the Indian authoritarians honor their part of the bargain. As long as American conservative authoritarians | + | * Part of the [[authoritarian]] bargain which American authoritarians seem to forget whenever it suits them is this: in exchange for unquestioning obedience and support of his followers, the authoritarian leader must guarantee the safety and well-being of those followers in a manner that is clearly superior to what they could expect from society at large. If Indian servants are truly happy to continue as servants (rather than fearful of the consequences of trying to break away from that system), it can only be because the Indian authoritarians honor their part of the bargain. As long as American conservative authoritarians fail to similarly provide for and protect their charges (in ''real'' ways that matter -- not trumped-up dangers like "the [[homosexual agenda]]" or "the [[liberal media elite]]"), the supposed desirability of the Indian class system cannot in any way be used to justify American conservatism. |
* Claiming "the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires" as a liberal preference is a bit of a mischaracterization; it is true at face value, but the word "possible" is open to being misinterpreted as "they want" rather than "is good for them and/or society". | * Claiming "the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires" as a liberal preference is a bit of a mischaracterization; it is true at face value, but the word "possible" is open to being misinterpreted as "they want" rather than "is good for them and/or society". | ||
| − | |||
Haidt continues: | Haidt continues: | ||
| Line 108: | Line 104: | ||
Haidt continues on a direction with which I can't really argue, defining morality as "any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible." He says this as if it is somehow sharply contrasted with the liberal view on morality, but I don't see how it is. | Haidt continues on a direction with which I can't really argue, defining morality as "any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible." He says this as if it is somehow sharply contrasted with the liberal view on morality, but I don't see how it is. | ||
| − | And now we get to | + | (And now we get to a bit to which [[2009-05-31 Why do people persist in voting Republican|Michael Barone]] interpreted as indicating a likelihood that "Republican voters tend to be more nuanced and sophisticated than Democratic voters".) |
| − | === | + | ===Ethos=== |
Haidt sets up two distinct kinds of societal ethos: | Haidt sets up two distinct kinds of societal ethos: | ||
* A '''[[wikipedia:John Stuart Mill|Millian]] society''' is "a [[social contract]] invented for our mutual benefit. All individuals are equal, and all should be left as free as possible to move, develop talents, and form relationships as they please." | * A '''[[wikipedia:John Stuart Mill|Millian]] society''' is "a [[social contract]] invented for our mutual benefit. All individuals are equal, and all should be left as free as possible to move, develop talents, and form relationships as they please." | ||
* A '''[[wikipedia:Émile Durkheim|Durkheimian]] society''' is "not ... an agreement among individuals but ... something that emerged organically over time as people found ways of living together, binding themselves to each other, suppressing each other's selfishness, and punishing the deviants and free-riders who eternally threaten to undermine cooperative groups. The basic social unit is not the individual, it is the hierarchically structured family, which serves as a model for other institutions. Individuals in such societies are born into strong and constraining relationships that profoundly limit their autonomy." | * A '''[[wikipedia:Émile Durkheim|Durkheimian]] society''' is "not ... an agreement among individuals but ... something that emerged organically over time as people found ways of living together, binding themselves to each other, suppressing each other's selfishness, and punishing the deviants and free-riders who eternally threaten to undermine cooperative groups. The basic social unit is not the individual, it is the hierarchically structured family, which serves as a model for other institutions. Individuals in such societies are born into strong and constraining relationships that profoundly limit their autonomy." | ||
| − | Haidt again casually slips in some assumptions, i.e. that a Millian society is ''not'' capable of finding ways to live together, binding themselves to each other, suppressing each other's selfishness, and avoiding social exploitation. | + | Haidt again casually slips in some assumptions, i.e. that a Millian society is ''not'' capable of finding ways to live together, binding themselves to each other, suppressing each other's selfishness, and avoiding social exploitation – or even forming stable, cooperative families. |
'''News flash to Haidt''': a society based on social contracts does these things pretty well, too. Probably better. It's kind of like the difference between an evolved use of tools (e.g. a bird creating a particular type of nest out of locally available materials, after millions of years of evolution in an environment containing those materials) and a human designing a new tool after applying a little rational analysis to a mechanical problem. The birds do a damn fine job with their nests, but we can build houses and skyscrapers and automobiles and spaceships -- and if we really wanted a bird's nest, we could build that too. | '''News flash to Haidt''': a society based on social contracts does these things pretty well, too. Probably better. It's kind of like the difference between an evolved use of tools (e.g. a bird creating a particular type of nest out of locally available materials, after millions of years of evolution in an environment containing those materials) and a human designing a new tool after applying a little rational analysis to a mechanical problem. The birds do a damn fine job with their nests, but we can build houses and skyscrapers and automobiles and spaceships -- and if we really wanted a bird's nest, we could build that too. | ||
| Line 126: | Line 122: | ||
One of the major problems with conservatives is that they seem to assume that without that sort of rigid stricture, most people would give in to such impulses, and society would collapse. | One of the major problems with conservatives is that they seem to assume that without that sort of rigid stricture, most people would give in to such impulses, and society would collapse. | ||
| − | Actually, they don't merely "assume" (assumptions can be corrected); they state it as an unquestionable truth, and continue stating it despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary. I suppose they're just "protecting their institutions" at the expense of the truth, but, you know, honesty is kind of important. If an institution can't survive exposure to the truth, then what good is it anyway? How is it helping society? If it is helping somehow, ''how can you tell?'' | + | (Actually, they don't merely "assume" (assumptions can be corrected); they state it as an unquestionable truth, and continue stating it despite the voluminous evidence to the contrary. I suppose they're just "protecting their institutions" at the expense of the truth, but, you know, honesty is kind of important. If an institution can't survive exposure to the truth, then what good is it anyway? How is it helping society? If it is helping somehow, ''how can you tell?'') |
| − | Experience shows that this, too, is nonsense... except possibly among those raised with conservative values. Perhaps the conservative mental wiring is such that they ''do'' need this sort of external rigidity to keep them in line – but I'm sure as hell not putting up with it in ''my'' life, and I feel quite confident that any children I raise will be better off without it, as will the society into which they mature. | + | Experience shows that this assumption, too, is nonsense... except possibly among those raised with conservative values. Perhaps the conservative mental wiring is such that they ''do'' need this sort of external rigidity to keep them in line – but I'm sure as hell not putting up with it in ''my'' life, and I feel quite confident that any children I raise will be better off without it, as will the society into which they mature. |
I also doubt very much that those who argue for such strictures are saying "Please, I need more rigidity in my life so I won't do bad stuff and hurt people!"; they generally seem much more interested in seeing ''other'' people thusly constrained. Conversely, liberal philosophy waits until someone actually behaves badly before constraining them, and even (gasp) attempts to take non-punitive corrective measures before this happens, minimizing the need for artificial restraint. | I also doubt very much that those who argue for such strictures are saying "Please, I need more rigidity in my life so I won't do bad stuff and hurt people!"; they generally seem much more interested in seeing ''other'' people thusly constrained. Conversely, liberal philosophy waits until someone actually behaves badly before constraining them, and even (gasp) attempts to take non-punitive corrective measures before this happens, minimizing the need for artificial restraint. | ||
| − | Haidt then goes on to make the (more or less obvious) point that the Durkheimian society relies on those ever-popular [[5 pillars of morality|Pillars]] #3-5, and that his research confirms that this pattern matches that of conservatism | + | Haidt then goes on to make the (more or less obvious) point that the Durkheimian society relies on those ever-popular [[5 pillars of morality|Pillars]] #3-5, and that his research confirms that this pattern matches that of conservatism (this is the paragraph which [[2009-05-31 Why do people persist in voting Republican|Barone]] quoted). |
====the 5 pillars==== | ====the 5 pillars==== | ||
Haidt's subsequent points rely heavily on acceptance of the "[[5 pillars of morality|5 pillars]]" idea (which asserts that liberals are largely insensitive to 3 of the 5 pillars – "Ingroup/Loyalty", "Authority/Respect", and "Purity/Sanctity" – while conservatives value all 5), so a review of the problems with this argument is in order. | Haidt's subsequent points rely heavily on acceptance of the "[[5 pillars of morality|5 pillars]]" idea (which asserts that liberals are largely insensitive to 3 of the 5 pillars – "Ingroup/Loyalty", "Authority/Respect", and "Purity/Sanctity" – while conservatives value all 5), so a review of the problems with this argument is in order. | ||
| Line 151: | Line 147: | ||
<blockquote>The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.</blockquote>To the extent that this is a criticism of the Democratic point of view, it is a stupid argument (do you want the medicine that tastes good, or the one that works?). To the extent that it is criticism of Democratic marketing, it is feeble; if I were a conservative, I would find it insulting: "Dem philosophy may actually work much better than that of the Cons, but Cons will shun it anyway until Dems wrap it in a shiny package with a pretty ribbon on top." | <blockquote>The resulting music may sound beautiful to other Democrats, but it sounds thin and incomplete to many of the swing voters that left the party in the 1980s, and whom the Democrats must recapture if they want to produce a lasting political realignment.</blockquote>To the extent that this is a criticism of the Democratic point of view, it is a stupid argument (do you want the medicine that tastes good, or the one that works?). To the extent that it is criticism of Democratic marketing, it is feeble; if I were a conservative, I would find it insulting: "Dem philosophy may actually work much better than that of the Cons, but Cons will shun it anyway until Dems wrap it in a shiny package with a pretty ribbon on top." | ||
| − | Sadly, Cons don't seem to have any problem with being insulted this way, or perhaps (as seems more likely) don't look beyond the surface to realize they're being conned; Barone references Haidt with apparent approval, and he seems to completely overlook the fact that Haidt is calling him and his ilk gullible fools who will take splash over substance every time, as long as the splash has the right symbols on it (family! church! country!). | + | Sadly, Cons don't seem to have any problem with being insulted this way, or perhaps (as seems more likely) don't look beyond the surface to realize they're being conned; Barone, for example, references Haidt with apparent approval, and he seems to completely overlook the fact that Haidt is calling him and his ilk gullible fools who will take splash over substance every time, as long as the splash has the right symbols on it (family! church! country!). |
| − | === | + | ===The Political Brain=== |
In the next section, Haidt reaches the end of the science he had to present, and keeps going -- not realizing that he has run past the end of what little credibility he had. ''Republicans have become the party of the sacred,'' says he, ''and Democrats the party of the profane -- the secular -- the material.'' | In the next section, Haidt reaches the end of the science he had to present, and keeps going -- not realizing that he has run past the end of what little credibility he had. ''Republicans have become the party of the sacred,'' says he, ''and Democrats the party of the profane -- the secular -- the material.'' | ||
| Line 195: | Line 191: | ||
What, you say, that's not a civilized retort? ''Exactly my point.'' We can't use "gut" reactions and emotional arguments that fly under the radar of rationality to settle our differences. You try to distract us at every turn from making the rational connections that might help to find common ground and untangle the mess, while arguing in favor of an intolerant and willfully ignorant ideology whose lack of fundamental integrity is at the root of it. | What, you say, that's not a civilized retort? ''Exactly my point.'' We can't use "gut" reactions and emotional arguments that fly under the radar of rationality to settle our differences. You try to distract us at every turn from making the rational connections that might help to find common ground and untangle the mess, while arguing in favor of an intolerant and willfully ignorant ideology whose lack of fundamental integrity is at the root of it. | ||
| + | ===Stop the Presses=== | ||
| + | I realized belatedly (nearly a month later) that I missed what may have been the biggest con of all in this piece. It kept nagging at me, but I couldn't parse it out clearly until now. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Haidt makes the argument that most people can't explain the moral choices they make when there is no obvious harm involved in the "wrong" choice, supposedly undermining the (supposedly liberal) idea that morality should be decided on the basis of whether a given action is harmful or not. He goes on to make the implicit argument (without actually saying it up front, of course) that <s>we</s> Democrats and liberals must respect these moral choices because are somehow necessary to support various institutions which are somehow necessary for our society. I took issue with those two "somehow"s (because he doesn't explain the connection in either case), but missed the elephant he had smuggled into the room. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Haidt is basically saying "We don't understand our morals, so we should just follow them." | ||
| + | |||
| + | The first problem with this is that what we're talking about, when we argue over morals versus rational discussion as a means of deciding things, is not relatively harmless trivia like whether it's okay to flush a flag down the toilet or eat a recently-deceased pet, but decisions over rules which affect people's lives and which ''can cause great harm'' if decided badly -- like: | ||
| + | * Should I have the right to marry based on love even if my preferences violate someone else's idea of morality? ([[gay marriage]], interracial marriage) | ||
| + | * Should public school teachers be allowed to teach their beliefs as fact when those beliefs contradict understandings determined by rational investigation? ([[creationism vs. science]], [[separation of church and state]]) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Recognizing that you can't argue morality, liberals have long tried to look ''behind'' the feelings that go into it to find the real goals each side is trying to meet through the morals they have arrived at – while conservatives cling proudly to their moral codes as if they were absolute and determined since the beginning of the universe (something which, indeed, many of them profess to believe, evidence notwithstanding). | ||
| + | |||
| + | This then sets up the "conservative morality vs. liberal rationalism" dichotomy Haidt uses throughout – but the fact of the matter is, '''liberals have morals too''', and those morals are sharply at odds with conservative morals on these and many other issues. The difference is that '''liberals don't try to use their morals as arguments'''. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To further rephrase Haidt, then: We don't understand ''conservative'' morals, so we should just follow them – even when they violate ''liberal'' morals. | ||
| + | |||
| + | True, Haidt isn't explicitly arguing that conservative mores should ''trump'' liberal ones; he says we need to "close the sacredness gap", find arguments that appeal to the other "pillars" (besides "harm/care" and "fairness/reciprocity") which he claims are the distinguishing (and even ennobling) characteristics of conservative morality. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The fact he carefully shuffles off the table when you're not looking, as I have mentioned, is that all the other pillars (even "fairness", the other "liberal" pillar) ''must derive from "harm/care"''. (If some particular "impurity" – say, putting ice and sugar in your tea – harms no one in any way, then why would anyone worry about it?) He tries to hide this very important connection behind a curtain of "morality" and pretend that the 3 "conservative pillars" are moral law unto themselves. | ||
| − | + | So maybe what he is actually saying is "We won't convince conservatives of anything unless we can explain our morals in terms of theirs", which is rather ludicrous -- especially since we're not supposed to make use of rationality, which is the one tool anyone has identified for resolving this sort of disagreement... other than physical force, which conservatives seem to favor. | |
| − | |||
| − | .. | + | Were liberals to try arguing on this basis, with this essential connection declared "off limits" as evidence, they could not even begin to make a case for many of their most strongly-held positions – especially where those positions question the value of conservative institutions, customs, and authority. The liberal position ''depends'' on this connection, which it can certainly defend -- but Haidt wants us to not only leave it undefended but to ''pretend it doesn't exist''. Haidt wants us to to hobble our horses so that conservatives will let us into their race. |
| − | + | Questioning assumptions and requiring that major decisions be backed by rational arguments is one of the main tenets of modern liberalism – and indeed, of any sane society. Haidt says we shouldn't try to analyze morals because they aren't rational, but this is backwards; where it affects the well-being (harm/care) of others, that which is not rational is the ''first'' thing we should be questioning. | |
| − | |||
==Appendix: Catalogue of Irrationalities== | ==Appendix: Catalogue of Irrationalities== | ||
This isn't a complete list, but it catches the highlights. Some sentences are counted more than once due to multiple sins. | This isn't a complete list, but it catches the highlights. Some sentences are counted more than once due to multiple sins. | ||