The value of Moral Foundations theory, I have always thought, is that it enables an understanding of the moral intuitions of those on the other side of the divide and makes them harder to misunderstand as evil and provides assistance with making arguments that will convince.
-
-
Show this thread
-
When it comes to those intuitions themselves tho, there are arguments to be made in favour of prioritising some over others, which ones & why. It is not a given that giving them all equal value is the way to maximise the best aspects of human morality in 21st century environments
Show this thread -
it could well be that the prioritising of care & reduction of harm foundation is actually more valuable than the sanctity/disgust foundation which seeks to avoid or ban things seen as disgusting even if that was very useful in preventing us from poisoning ourselves historically.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I think that thesis is wrong. I think liberals do them differently.
-
It's increasingly begin to seem so with the whole purity thing, anyway.
-
Purity thing?
-
The moral foundation associated with sanctity & purity & banning the degrading & disgusting is supposed to be very much on the conservative side and underlie seemingly inexplicable moral stances against things like homosexuality which harms no-one. Personal disgust moralised.
-
However, we see a lot of purity demands and puritanism on the left at the moment too and expressions of disgust for certain views and behaviours which aren't actually harmful.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Haidt does slide from "is" to "ought" on occasion. He doesn't entertain that having more moral foundations could be maladaptive - that the foundations unique to conservatives struggle more to find ethical purchase in the modern social context than the care/harm and fairness ones.
-
I don't think Haidt sees it that way, no. It's Stephen Messenger's review I am talking about. That very claim that morality binds and blinds would seem to negate the idea that just going with them all is the path to success.
-
The moral foundations are about half the story. Cognitive style also matters. A lot. And may even be the determining factor as to how the foundations are applied.http://quillette.com/2018/04/20/towards-cognitive-theory-politics/ …
-
Haidt talks about the two main cognitive styles in a few places. places. First, in The Righteous Mind, in his discussions of WEIRD thinking on the left vs holistic thinking on the right.https://theindependentwhig.com/haidt-passages/haidt/weird-morality-and-style-of-thought/ …
-
Second, in top-down globalist terms on the left versus bottom-up parochial terms on the right.http://ccare.stanford.edu/videos/meng-wu-lecture-jonathan-haidt/ …
-
Third, picking up on Sowell’s unconstrained thinking on the left vs constrained thinking on the right, expressed as the Telos of Social Justice vs the Telos of Truth, he calls them two incompatible “sacred values” but they’re really two cognitive styles.https://youtu.be/Gatn5ameRr8
-
These two cognitive styles are evident through 2,400 years of human history, overviewed by Arthur Herman in his book The Cave and the Light:pic.twitter.com/pAN2kw6cRs
-
Cognitive style is a moral foundation, in the sense of an “evolved psychological mechanism” (from Haidt’s definition of morality) of social cognition, that he missed, or at least severely underestimated.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
"Haidt’s Evenhandedness Dilutes His Message and Harms Science" What an obviously ridiculous thing to say. It's a textbook example of the sort of blindness
@JonHaidt talked about in The Righteous Mind.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.