The Ex-Communicator - The biological proof that liberals have a warped morality (!)

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> User Info

January 25th, 2008


Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
03:58 pm - The biological proof that liberals have a warped morality (!)
Spot the bias in this NYT report on the supposedly universal principles of morality.

In a large Web survey, Haidt found that liberals put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead place a moderately high weight on all five.


Those damn liberals, caring about fairness and whether people are harmed, more than they care about purity, group membership and obedience to authority. Or could it be that we've got the right idea?

Here is a bit more on the subject (quote from NYT)

Haidt counts five — harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity — and suggests that they are the primary colors of our moral sense. Not only do they keep reappearing in cross-cultural surveys, but each one tugs on the moral intuitions of people in our own culture. Haidt asks us to consider how much money someone would have to pay us to do hypothetical acts like the following:

1 - Stick a pin into your palm.
Stick a pin into the palm of a child you don’t know. (Harm.)

2 - Accept a wide-screen TV from a friend who received it at no charge because of a computer error.
Accept a wide-screen TV from a friend who received it from a thief who had stolen it from a wealthy family. (Fairness.)

3 - Say something bad about your nation (which you don’t believe) on a talk-radio show in your nation.
Say something bad about your nation (which you don’t believe) on a talk-radio show in a foreign nation. (Community.)

4 - Slap a friend in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit.
Slap your minister in the face, with his permission, as part of a comedy skit. (Authority.)

5 - Attend a performance-art piece in which the actors act like idiots for 30 minutes, including flubbing simple problems and falling down on stage.
Attend a performance-art piece in which the actors act like animals for 30 minutes, including crawling around naked and urinating on stage. (Purity.)

In each pair, the second action feels far more repugnant.


does it really, oh NYT?

1 - Agree: sticking a pin in a child of course feels more repugnant than sticking it in myself.
2 - Partly agree, though I am definitely influenced here by whether I'd get into trouble (sorry if that's a bit immoral of me)
3 - Bizarre example, not sure one is obviously worse than another
4 - Have no idea why one is supposed to be worse than another - genuinely baffled. Am assuming 'minister' means 'vicar'? I don't have one?
5 - I'd be less offended by people jokily pretending to be animals than mentally defective humans, so I fail at morality apparently

So there. I am apparently a biological anomaly, and so are all other liberals.

(Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:[info]white_hart
Date:January 25th, 2008 04:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I parsed 'minister' as 'Cabinet minister', and would probably pay someone to let me do that. And if the minister/vicar/whoever has agreed then I really don't see a problem. I have problems with both actions under 3, but that's because I value honesty and wouldn't want to say something I don't believe on the radio.

Edited at 2008-01-25 04:05 pm (UTC)
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:06 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I would find both the radio things fairly uncomfortable. Possibly I'd be less worried about saying 'Gordon Brown smokes crack with Amy Winehouse' on Radio Jakarta than on Radio 4.
[User Picture]
From:[info]iainjcoleman
Date:January 26th, 2008 12:15 am (UTC)
(Link)
Personally, I wouldn't say that in any public forum. It might improve his poll ratings.
[User Picture]
From:[info]andrewducker
Date:January 25th, 2008 04:14 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Clearly you're a stinking liberal, and deserve to be taken out and shot, as a warning to others.
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Also, I can get you a good deal on a telly
[User Picture]
From:[info]iainjcoleman
Date:January 25th, 2008 04:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Having only glanced at the article, the underlying stuff about how moral rationalisation works could be interesting, but some of the examples are amusingly culture-specific. One of the questions meant to ilicit an instinctive moral response is about cutting up an old American flag to use as dusters. How many Brits would give a second's thought to cutting up an old Union Jack, even supposing they had such a thing lying around the house for some reason?
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yes, it's like those films where you see people all around the world watching the American Superbowl or World Final or whatever it's called. Not as instinctively universal as it might appear from Iowa.
[User Picture]
From:[info]hoyland54
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
During the Super Bowl every year, they do show people watching all around the world. Of course, they're always watching a military television feed. (I understand the military also relays radio broadcasts of Cubs games, as people would write to the broadcasters from Saudi Arabia or wherever. I don't know what people who like other teams do.) I don't know who the rest of the "X people watching around the world are" except the Guardian's minute-by-minute man.
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:20 pm (UTC)
(Link)
those would be US soldiers around the world I suppose? I don't begrudge them watching it of course, I just think it passes unremarked in Bombay and Luton
[User Picture]
From:[info]archbishopm
Date:January 25th, 2008 04:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Affirmative minister == vicar and it seems obvious to me that'd be the worse one but then as I frequently reiterate I am not a liberal. Agh, why can't I shut up in your journal?
[User Picture]
From:[info]ninebelow
Date:January 25th, 2008 04:31 pm (UTC)
(Link)
So where does slapping a friend who is a minister come on the scale?
[User Picture]
From:[info]archbishopm
Date:January 25th, 2008 06:11 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I would count that as slapping a friend. And no I do not have no logical rationale at all.
[User Picture]
From:[info]andrewducker
Date:January 25th, 2008 06:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Just wanted to leap in and say that I, personally, don't feel that morals need any kind of logical rationale. They're about the way you feel about things. Sometimes it's how you feel about the consequences of an act, sometimes it's about how you feel about the act itself - but the important thing is that at root they're about feelings, not rationale. Not being able to justify it doesn't make them any less real, as far as I'm concerned.
[User Picture]
From:[info]archbishopm
Date:January 25th, 2008 06:49 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Still I feel it's always a bonus to be able to retcon up a plausible back story...;-p
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 04:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Also my mum is a vicar which complicates things

ETA - I am surprised that smacking a vicar seems worse to you. I'm thinking about those church fêtes where throwing wet sponges at the vicar is all part of the fun?

Edited at 2008-01-25 05:00 pm (UTC)
[User Picture]
From:[info]archbishopm
Date:January 25th, 2008 06:09 pm (UTC)
(Link)
smacking a vicar

Well now that just sounds dirty.
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
and I also meant to say, please don't shut up on my journal
[User Picture]
From:[info]archbishopm
Date:January 25th, 2008 06:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I hear and obey.
[User Picture]
From:[info]ozarque
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks for the post, and for posting the link to the article.
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Thanks. I have such a strong reaction to the thought of hurting a child, which I am quite sure is wired into me at a deep neural level, and all of the others seem a bit theoretical in comparison
[User Picture]
From:[info]hoyland54
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:27 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Health vegetarians avoid meat for practical reasons, like lowering cholesterol and avoiding toxins. Moral vegetarians avoid meat for ethical reasons: to avoid complicity in the suffering of animals. By investigating their feelings about meat-eating, Rozin showed that the moral motive sets off a cascade of opinions. Moral vegetarians are more likely to treat meat as a contaminant — they refuse, for example, to eat a bowl of soup into which a drop of beef broth has fallen.

Isn't this obvious? Granted, now that I step back and think about it, I'm not sure I understand the jump from "killing things is wrong" to (perhaps a bit more extreme example) to not eating things that shared cooking space with meat. Oh, and apparently, being gay is now a "lifestyle choice". NYT, can we not play into the hands of the right, please? And this is supposed to be the country's liberal newspaper. Mutter, mutter, mutter.

I'm also confused about number 4. I will freely admit that women priests and married priests just don't compute for me. (If the church wanted to go that way, I'd not complain, but it would certainly getting used to.) However, slapping a priest with permission is decided not a problem. (I'm not sure how those two things are related, other than that I'm a bit stodgy about religion in some ways.)
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
From what you say I'm guessing you are coming from a Catholic background? I think the attitude to priests is different in Catholic and Anglican (my background) traditions than in Evangelical and other non-Anglican Protestant traditions. The Anglican vicar is almost assumed to be a figure of fun I think.
[User Picture]
From:[info]archbishopm
Date:January 25th, 2008 06:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
This is probably it exactly. I mean the United Church is the unholy spawn of the two most humour-impaired subsets of Christianosity...
[User Picture]
From:[info]jomacmouse
Date:January 26th, 2008 05:18 am (UTC)
(Link)
Now I'm curious - which two? I want to compare with the Uniting Church here, to which I nominally belong...
[User Picture]
From:[info]archbishopm
Date:January 26th, 2008 05:29 am (UTC)
(Link)
Presbyterians and Methodists.
[User Picture]
From:[info]jomacmouse
Date:January 26th, 2008 06:12 am (UTC)
(Link)
Ah, almost snap. The Congregationalists were invited into that mixture here and, if the Rev Fred Nile is any indication, they can be pretty humourless too...
From:[info]dreamalert
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
1. If I were trying to dig a splinter out, I wouldn't be averse to either option. However, without some context both of them seem utterly insane to me.

2. Computer errors don't justify theft. What's the difference in the options?

3. "Minister" does mean "vicar," but as a frequent church-goer (indeed, an "Elder" in a fairly middle-of-the-road congregation), I cannot for the life of me imagine why there would be anything wrong about slapping my pastor/minister/vicar in a skit, if he gave his permission. Indeed, in a church skit a couple years ago, I fervently advocated the crucifixion of the highest authority figure in Christianity (played by a ministry student).



4. Nor can I comprehend why I would want to say something bad that I don't believe about any nation on a talk-radio show anywhere.

5. The second option seems more likely to be unsanitary. However, Urinetown is a hilarious musical. (In Denver, it was even staged at the sewage-treatment plant!)


All of these clap-trap ethics "surveys" depend on asking questions for which the context is either unrealistic or completely unspecified.

For what it's worth, in the U.S. few newspapers are considered to be more liberal than the New York Times.
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 05:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You win for the most outrageous picture ever posted in this blog. Awesome. 'And this one is me, strangling Jesus'
[User Picture]
From:[info]kerravonsen
Date:January 25th, 2008 11:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Totally agree on both 3 and 4.
[User Picture]
From:[info]dalmeny
Date:January 26th, 2008 02:06 am (UTC)
(Link)
With the computer error TV, I presumed the company knew about it and had written it off as an error, in which case it wouldn't be theft at all.
[User Picture]
From:[info]kalypso_v
Date:January 25th, 2008 07:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think it petered out before he became a junior minister, but one of the local Labour party branches used to do an annual panto, during which our MP would be called upon to humiliate himself, eg he had to mime shaving himself while using a mobile phone and... I seem to remember vegetables came into it, but I've forgotten how*... anyway, I thought the ritual mocking of an authority figure (in this case, one we're very fond of) was a traditional feature of society? eg the Lord of Misrule/Twelfth Night thing. Maybe that makes it conservative.

It strikes me that modern politics consists of very little but slapping cabinet ministers in the face.

*It's coming back to me. He was blindfolded, and the phone and razor were really vegetables. His helpless giggling rather impeded the mime.

Edited at 2008-01-25 07:31 pm (UTC)
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 09:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It sounds quite adorable
[User Picture]
From:[info]kalypso_v
Date:January 25th, 2008 11:43 pm (UTC)
(Link)
It was supposed to be an illustration of New Labour in action. He did eventually give in and shave off his beard, despite my telling him not to.
[User Picture]
From:[info]hawkeye7
Date:January 25th, 2008 09:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The "bizarre" example #3 almost certainly refers to the Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines who, while performing at a concert in London on 10 March 2003, referred to the war in Iraq saying: "Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas." This resulted in an enormous furor in the United States over the propriety of criticising your country in a foreign nation.
[User Picture]
From:[info]communicator
Date:January 25th, 2008 09:46 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I do remember that incident, though do you think it would have gone down any better if they had said it in Tulsa or somewhere?
[User Picture]
From:[info]hawkeye7
Date:January 26th, 2008 07:00 am (UTC)
(Link)
It's hard to say. I do remember right-wing commentators hammering away on this point, so it evidently had resonance with at least some people.
[User Picture]
From:[info]julesjones
Date:January 25th, 2008 09:51 pm (UTC)
(Link)
To me the idea that the second option in 4 is repugnant utterly bizarre, but I'm an Anglican. I can get my head around the idea of someone brought up in a highly authoritarian and humour-impaired church finding it unpleasant, even with the minister's permission, but I don't think that that level of deference to authority is *desirable*. And I'm someone who would consider slapping a vicar in the face without his permission (and without genuine provocation) to be worse than slapping J Random Person, because of the implicit attack on someone simply for being an authority figure.
[User Picture]
From:[info]sallymn
Date:January 25th, 2008 10:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hello, fellow biological anomaly!!!

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com