Comments on: TED2008: Liberals, conservatives and moral humility

By: D. Allen

D. Allen — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:28:57 +0000

Um… Ethan – I don’t think Dean needed that reminder. You’re being oversensitive.

By: Brian Clark

Brian Clark — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:55:06 +0000

As one of the relatively rare folk who regularly travels between groups that are strongly weighted toward more than one of these molar polarities, I find Haidt’s discussion very intriguing. It reminds me a lot of the pioneering work of Psychologist Robert Coles, who spent years and years interviewing children from different social classes. He found, for example, that children of the working classes and poor had (like their parents) a very strong sense of loyalty and care for people in their immediate sphere of relationships. And they thought of moral life in terms of loyalty to those folk. The folk far higher in the social strata thought of morality primarily in terms of abstract principles of social ethics, and tended to spend more time talking about the good of humanity in general. More inclined to think about whether things were “just” in the abstract sense, the higher-ups were less likely to be dedicated to the welfare of particular other people.

Those moral polarities are not precisely the same as the ones noted above, but they do show real differences in moral and ethical formation, within the same society. And I think that Haidt is on the money when he shows a moral polarization between Red and Blue America, since each side is inclined to see the other as essentially immoral or unethical. There are, of course, many “moderates” who try to blend the best of both kids of moral awareness, such as the more “liberal” Evangelical Christians, who combine “social justice” concerns with concern for personal morality in matters like sex.

I do think that it may break down at certain points, however.

By: Joe Norman

Joe Norman — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:16:16 +0000

What I would really like to see is a study between the CLAIMS people make about their morals and the actions they would actually take given a tough moral situation. For instance, I have a lot of friends I would term ‘liberal’ who would certainly claim to have little or no ingroup bias; but I have a hard time believing if they could save only one person off a sinking ship, they would flip a coin between their mother and a stranger.

By: David Stewart

David Stewart — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 18:27:27 +0000

Ummm – preoccupations with authority, ingroup and purity aren’t morals – they are psychological character flaws – Does Haidt not remember a little social experiment called . . The Nazis??? (Wait a minute – how do you pronounce Haidt’s name????)
“research shows that cooperation in economic games decays over time without punishment. ” Hmmm maybe he ought to have a look at some of the results of this social experiment http://www.osearth.com/ – When the world game is weighted with Social Conservatives it often collapse very quickly. Not so when it is weighted with Liberal type folks

By: bruce a landwaster

bruce a landwaster — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 20:12:57 +0000

Um, first off, mortality is metaphysics. secondly i question the so called morals be used here. seriously, this is complete asshattery.

By: John

John — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:34:17 +0000

In response to dean sellers quote:

“Is it really such a good thing to always be dividing people into groups and calling one the winners and all the rest the losers? Is that the way all people think, or just the smaller thinkers? Some of the more modern leadership courses teach the concept that everybody can win. What’s wrong with that?”

Funny how you separated yourself from from other people, then arbitrarily made yourself the winner and the others who disagree with you the losers (smaller thinkers). If everybody wins then nobody is wrong. Then the original author’s ideas are taken as fact and there should be no argument against them. He isn’t wrong after all. You should do yourself a favor, learn about contradiction before you enter a grown-up conversation.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 22:04:49 +0000

A reminder, Dean – I’m just blogging these talks. I don’t have any control over what the speakers say – all I’m doing is transcribing, with as much accuracy as I’m able, what Dr. Haidt presented in the session.

By: Dean Sellers

Dean Sellers — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:46:46 +0000

“Why should liberals care about these other three moral values?” What was given in the article in answer to this question was pretty thin. Do we really need sexual “purity” to keep civilization from crumbling? And is that really what killed the Roman empire, or was it despots (Authority) running things into the ground? There was the claim that we need authority to keep things in order. Do you mean like George Bush did? Yegads, I don’t think that the United States or the world could take much more of that kind of order.

There was also no defense in the article for why “ingroup” is such a good thing. Is it really such a good thing to always be dividing people into groups and calling one the winners and all the rest the losers? Is that the way all people think, or just the smaller thinkers? Some of the more modern leadership courses teach the concept that everybody can win. What’s wrong with that?

By: quixote

quixote — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 22:12:58 +0000

Sometimes you're too polite, Ethan. Haidt is simply full of it. I hope it's not too far beyond the pale to link to myself, but it takes longer than a one paragraph comment to take him down, so here's a long-ish blogpost. Haidt gives us dangerous nonsense, not just silly nonsense. It harks right back to the justifications of oppression, whether it's castes or women. I'm appalled to hear that he's being given a platform among the Cool Kidz of TED.