Difference between revisions of "2008-09-09 What Makes People Vote Republican/woozle"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(saving work again -- just lost about an hour's worth) |
m (saving work again) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
If we're talking about the validity of Barone's post, then, we're mainly talking about the validity of Haidt's article (with emphasis on those two paragraphs) plus Barone's additional parting shot. | If we're talking about the validity of Barone's post, then, we're mainly talking about the validity of Haidt's article (with emphasis on those two paragraphs) plus Barone's additional parting shot. | ||
| − | ===Haidt: | + | ===Haidt: introduction=== |
The first hint of trouble (i.e. anything that I can disagree with) is when Haidt says: | The first hint of trouble (i.e. anything that I can disagree with) is when Haidt says: | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Haidt then tested this hypothesis for his dissertation, where he "made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless." What he found was that most people agreed that the actions were wrong even though nobody was harmed -- which, he argues, supports his hypothesis that morality is not (or not entirely) based on avoidance of harm to others. | Haidt then tested this hypothesis for his dissertation, where he "made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless." What he found was that most people agreed that the actions were wrong even though nobody was harmed -- which, he argues, supports his hypothesis that morality is not (or not entirely) based on avoidance of harm to others. | ||
| − | What it suggests to me is that most people don't think these things through very carefully. Let's take a look at some | + | What it suggests to me is that most people don't think these things through very carefully. Just because most people don't know the reasons why they do or believe things doesn't mean there wasn't originally a reason, nor does it mean that "going along" with them for the sake of social harmony is irrational. |
| − | * '''"a woman ... can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private"''': Knowing that many people are very attached to the flag, it would arguably be emotionally hurtful to them to willfully destroy one in a way that seems disrespectful. Also, some people might assume that any such destruction was a political statement against America; whether or not this is true, it would be a bad idea to '' | + | |
| − | * '''"a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner"''' | + | Let's take a look at some the examples he cites: |
| + | * '''"a woman ... can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private"''': Knowing that many people are very attached to the flag, it would arguably be emotionally hurtful to them to willfully destroy one in a way that seems disrespectful. Also, some people might assume that any such destruction was a political statement against America; whether or not this is true, it would be a bad idea to ''accidentally'' create such an impression. (The question of whether these feelings about a piece of colored cloth are rational is [[patriotism|a separate discussion]].) | ||
| + | * '''"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 one. First of all, some cultures ''do'' eat dog meat. 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. | ||
{{editing}} | {{editing}} | ||