Comments on: Why conservatives and liberals talk past each other on moral issues.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 05:21:35 +0000

Here’s a thoughtful article about Haidt’s five sources of moral values from the NYT. Link here. Especially note the criticisms of Haidt’s approach by Frans de Waal at the end of the article.

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 03:11:43 +0000

Ben: That is a rip-roarin’ discussion on Haidt’s article. Really good issues raised by some excellent writers. I did enjoy the quote you posted (it was by Sam Harris). Another good passage was this one, by P.Z. Myers:

By my side right now, I have a small plush animal. If it were conclusively shown that beliefs in a god or religion were definitely beneficial in and of themselves, that humans needed this little kernel of worship in order to thrive a little better, and I said that my toy octopus was a god, lord and savior of us all, and if only you believed in him, you would gain an empirically demonstrable extra year of life and a quantifiable increase in your happiness, what would you do? Would you abandon one little piece of rationality and bow down before the toy? Would you even be capable of that level of credulity?

I would say that the New Atheists definitely would not, not even for an extra year of life (I don’t know about the rest of you; I’m beginning to be suspicious.) We couldn’t. I would also say we shouldn’t. There is more to our lives than the raw quantity of it, and bliss isn’t the ultimate goal of our existence — I think even the American religious who are the subject of those surveys might be a little aghast at the idea that the purpose of their belief was to help them cling to a life of hedonism for as long as possible. I would sacrifice a little happiness to know the truth, and I would find no consolation in a lie, no matter how cheerful that lie might be. I’m sure there was a time when I was extremely happy about Santa Claus, but that was long ago, and I have no desire to return to that state of blissful ignorance. I grew up. Most of us do.

By: Ben

Ben — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:19:59 +0000

On “Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion” By Jonathan Haidt

David Sloan Wilson, Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, PZ Myers

“The point is that religion remains the only mode of discourse that encourages grown men and women to pretend to know things they manifestly do not (and cannot) know. If ever there were an attitude at odds with science, this is it.”

http://www.edge.org/discourse/moral_religion.html

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:54:34 +0000

(MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION-Haidt)
http://www.edge.org/documents/archive/edge222.html#haidt

“Haidt closes his essay with another trite accusation. The New Atheists might help advance the cause of atheism, but it muddles up science with “moralistic dogma” and damages the “prestige of science” — we’re hurting the cause, that tiresome old whine. Oh, please, do buck up. The New Atheism isn’t about throwing away moral systems or introducing a new dogma, it’s about opening up a protected realm to inquiry and sweeping away old cobwebs, refusing to allow people to hide absurd ideas from criticism behind the foolish plea of faith.”

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/09/arguments_for_morality_are_not.php#comment-563995

By: Vicki Baker

Vicki Baker — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:10:06 +0000

Mikela:

As a teacher of writing, you might need to brush up on genres and discourse levels. It was clear to me that Erich’s intent was to share some research he found interesting and invite further discussion, not present a formal paper on moral reasoning. A blog article like this is on the informal end the scale of formality to informality in written expression, somewhere beyond the personal essay.

In regards to the question and answer you found so egregious, the adjective “tenured” gives all the context you need: obviously the people who answered were professionally engaged as moral philosophers in some institution or other. (A dirty job but somebody’s got to do it.)

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:37:10 +0000

Mikela: I refuse to respond to your viciousness with viciousness. That’s one of my moral tenets. I’m curious, though. I’ve never met you before. What did you think you would accomplish with your string of insults? With all of your alleged training in logic and writing, was there no gentle or kind-hearted way for you to show your disappointment with my post?

For the record, the three professors all taught at reputable universities. They were not drunk, pontificating prostitute idiots. If you wanted to know more about Haidt’s article, you could have followed the link and read Haidt’s article for yourself.

By: Mikela Smith

Mikela Smith — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:38:09 +0000

Stumbled upon this site via Stumble, and as a teacher of writing and logic, I must admit that your argument is weak (at times non-existent), muddled, and vague. Specificity is the key to writing well. For example, you quote “three moral philosophers”, but fail to cite exactly who they are, where they work, and the details of their education or degrees. Are they pontificating drunks at your local watering hole? Distinguished professors from a reputable university? Do tell. And, why you are at it, cut to the chase. It reads as if you want to present a solid, commendable position (known as a thesis), but don’t have the wherewithal or the language to do so. Go back to school. Pay more attention. Stop dropping names, and start supporting your statements.

Every time I asked this question the answer was: “Not at all.”

Who answered this question? God? Darwin? A local prostitute?

By: Kevin Jones

Kevin Jones — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 16:03:37 +0000

Interesting analysis that finds support in other forms of political analysis. Liberalism has long been held to be a “least common denominator” morality which amputates traditionalist ethics for the sake of, say, social peace(after the Reformation destroyed religious unity) or for the sake of business opportunites. The wider vocabulary of conservative ethics seems to allow for greater nuance in theory. Though friendship or marriage, for instance, can be understood under harm/care or fairness/reciprocity, recognizing the virtues of loyalty and purity provides further layers for ethical exploration and discussion.

By: Erika Price

Erika Price — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:09:18 +0000

T.G.: Blood on the hands does not a sociopath make. Plenty of psychologically normal people kill, and in a way more physically direct than Bush- does every soldier or cop who has willingly killed qualify as a sociopath? No, sociopathy does not lie in the act- it lies in behaving selfishly with seemingly no capacity to consider the feelings and humanity of others. I don’t think Bush can get off that easily. He knows “right” from “wrong”; he just convinces himself that his current actions represent right, moral, and just. Normal people play such tricks on themselves all the time. But unlike a sociopath, they should have to pay for it.

By: Thomas Penn Johnson

Thomas Penn Johnson — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:22:16 +0000

I simply stopped reading after awhile because of apparent flaws: (1) False dichotomy of pure categories of conservative/liberal–I and many others am both & neither, but definitely not one or the other. (2) The moral of the story of “The Six Blind Men of Indostan” is that they are from the East, not the West; so “each is partially in the right and each partially in the wrong”, and, consequently, they agree to disagree and go off together to smoke a hookah or do whatever. In the East they would have drawn their moral swords and hacked each other to smithereens on account of arguments over words. Western religious zealots are willing, and even eager, to slaughter one another over words. (3) Morality is a matter of action, a matter of doing the right thing: one doesn’t need philosophy to do the right thing, one needs a heart (feeling) and a conscience which moral compasses are available to anybody, even the illiterate or primitive. (4) The doctrine of moral equivalency (betweeen conflicting views) is self-serving to the conservative line of argument which seems primarily to be pugilistic, adversarial, derogatory, ad hominem, and frigid (in terms of rationality and equity)–they always frame the argument to portray liberals as illogical, mean-spirited, or even traitorous. Who wants all that negativity around them, even if it’s couched in moral theory and a tone of intellectual superiority and snobbery? Contemporary American political conservatives should do the rest of us a favor and address their moral expostulations to themselves. Respectfully, Thomas Penn Johnson