Stephen Messenger certainly knows his moral foundations but I have always found his thesis that conservative morality is objectively superior because it draws on all moral foundations while liberals draw much more strongly on half somewhat akin to the naturalistic fallacy.https://twitter.com/AreoMagazine/status/1055897417839718401 …
-
-
@zemblan2 Agreed. They inform us of how people think and expose us to our own Foundations (Haidt's contention that progressives still feel disgust and elevation, just over different issues). They describe, not prescribe, and can inform policy based on other moral grounds.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I use Haidt’s MFQ in my BusEthics class. I encourage students to think of the foundations as different, not “better”. How would you respond if a student challenged you with the evidence that those with more than just the care/harm foundation can better understand all sides?
-
You can understand a view without having to subscribe to it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Utilitarianism often criticised as crude and repulsive because it causes us to weigh everyone’s interests equally. In my view our ‘intuitions’ are themselves crude remnants of our clan, hunter- gatherer past.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Rationally, perhaps you’re right. But it’s also a conservative principle that you have to work within human nature — and the sanctity/disgust foundation is an important aspect of that nature. It has to be accounted for. Abstract moralizing doesn’t cut it.
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.