I am sure most of us have wondered why people do the things they do. Vote the way they vote, etc. Conservatives generally think that liberals have a mental illness. Liberals think that conservatives are simpletons or religious fanatics. Surely both views cannot be correct. What if they are both wrong? I saw the title of this video and though it would be interesting. I think it was. Helpful in understanding other people and why they hold the crazy beliefs they do. Discuss in comments please.
Link to Video
13 comments:
Well I thought that the video was interesting. The most interesting thought I had came when he was talking about the yin/yang Shiva/Vishnu of conservatism vs. liberalism.
It seems to me, (and i am probably wrong as I don't know my history that well) that human societies were all started with the 5 basics of morality in place. Indeed it may be impossible to create a stable society without them. However being that humans are imperfect, these 5 bases lead to societies in which inequality and other problems are inherent. So as the society evolves, people come along who see that the injustices are derived from three of the five sources of morality. So they champion for only two, and are labeled liberals. This is why conservatives think they have a mental disease, because they ignore three basic human sources of morality.
Anyway so what happens is this: liberals see problems in existing societies and seek to change them, while conservatives resist such change. Conservatives want to preserve society, while liberals want to improve it. However, I wonder if liberals by eschewing three of five bases of morality are unwittingly leading societies to destruction. Perhaps the perfect human society is not possible as humans are not perfect.
Maybe it is best to be a oscillating centrist, as opposed to a liberal or a conservative. As either of these extremes leads to either the subjugation of certain parts of society, or the crumbling of society as a whole.
The five basics of morality:
Care,Harm:
Fairness,Golden Rule:
Respect,Authority:
Loyalty,Ingroup:
Purity,Sanctity:
Actual morality then must be the right and wrong of any question categorized into one of the five basics?
I find it interesting that the question of what is moral is not raised so much in this Liberal vs. Conservative comparison as much as which basics of morality are focused on.
I don't think that all basic moral categories considered vs. selective basic moral categories considered is yin/yang, Shiva/Vishnu(creator/destroyer). Though in a society setting (as Matthew points out) Shiva/Vishnu could have some connection.
Liberal => Society Breaking
Conservative => Society Building
When I think yin/yang I think of 2 Ne 2
For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery.
The important questions are what is right and wrong regardless of category.
That being said I also can't see how selecting a subset of moral basics can be justified.
Pretty interesting. So if we are to understand him correctly conservatives build a society and the liberals make it “better”. He even stated though what happens is either the society dies out or has a return to the founding values (the money game part, but instead of the game being “with out punishment/with punishment” it should be “with out consequence/with consequence”. I think this puts it in a better perspective). I’ve always wondered why it seems that conservatives are willing to build a society but liberals don’t seem to be (here like Matthew I must admit that I don’t really know if there was perhaps a great liberal society in history that started liberal and succeeded) .
It always seems to be the bee vs. wax moth analogy. The hard working bees occupied by building their society and the wax moth benefiting from them. A wax moth can’t survive with out the bees but the bees do just fine with out the moth. What happens is either the bees are strong enough to keep the wax moths in check, or grow weak and die out/ leave to start another hive some where free of the wax moth. This analogy misses the fact that the liberal is trying to “improve” society where the wax moth doesn’t really care if he makes anything better as long as he gets his. But continuing with the personification of bugs, maybe the wax moth sees the injustice of a bee working itself to death with no thanks, being seen as a part of a society, a faceless forgotten number and not as an individual. The wax moth seeing this moves in to show the bees how they should be living, how they should form their society. My question is why doesn’t the wax moth start its own perfect society and not destroy one built by others? But being fair, maybe the wax moth could but it wants to help the individual that is oppressed (I think this is noble and necessary trait in humans, but not to an extreme, just like society building is necessary but not to the point of oppressing the individual’s rights)
I still think the other half is crazy but now I know why I think that way (If this guys research is correct but I don’t disagree with it). I’m sure you’ve heard the saying that conservatives care about people but not about a person, and liberals care about a person but not about people. Conservatives seem to understand that sacrifices must be made for the better of the whole and liberals can’t stand the idea of someone having to sacrifice even if it means society will get hurt. So who’s right? I admit I can appreciate the view of those fighting for the individual but I am more of a society/order kind of person.
i consider myself more liberal than i used to be by far. however i still to hold to some conservative ideas. very interesting talk. yin and yang very interesting point. diversity is good but not always better than the status quo so i'm on the fence on that one. definitely don't like authority, i do think that ones opinion however misguided by another's standards should be kept and adhered to. or in other words be open minded but stick to what you believe. don't justify certain choices. no reason to justify anything. god=commandments=follow them period or no god=no commandments=individual morality=follow it! either way, if god given or internally given, follow your beliefs. long story short, authority is internal, times 6 billion people = no authority. although people fall into groupings religions, kkk, bingo club who share certain similarities.
i'm on the no harm no oppression side, so liberal there.
change is great or horrible depending on the change or what is being changed :) again back to the who's the authority problem. in general though there is a lot of good in society but we are nowhere near utopia, therefore change is necessary, may lead to worse may lead to better, but current overall needs to be improved/changed.
anyway very interesting talk. i'd consider myself a ocilating centrist leaning towards liberal with societies and individuals best interests in mind, agnostic athiest. hmm need to come up with a more concise term.
maybe enjoy life to it's fullest and do no harm (relative term) to others
joseph
n i'd go with conservatives maintain a society (not build) and liberals make the society better ;)!!!!!! jk conservatives, better, or worse, status quo vs change. "change" not always better. but again i'd argue depends on the perspective/point of view. if there is a god, then it's his point of view/laws commandments that matter and better is measured by that. if we are a perfect society and his laws are already given and fulfilled then no need for change, conservatives win, but if we are not there yet as a society (or even a sub society) then liberals win more, or lose more but change towards better wins therefore status quo loses.
anyway but if no god, no laws, and society's better or worse is an individual thing. conservatives maintaining the good is good, but liberals are trying to change it towards better, weather they succeed or not is up to a simple 51% opinion, majority, jk, up to each individual and their personal needs and opinions, or if we are talking about society as a whole, then yes 51% agreeing better is likely an improvement.
gets complicated obviously but say there's a god and two cars racing towards each other are headed for an inevitable collision, there's time for a prayer and both pray to their upmost ability and faith to be saved. does god chose whom to save in some higher plan/ flip a coin on who lives or dies?/ make it up to the loser in the afterlife?/ or is the better or worse outcome going to depend on which car you are in? i think both cars will have a different opinion on which outcome is better god or not. anyway back to change vs no change, depends on your perspective if things get better or worse, but i think 99 % of people religious or not will agree that we are not "there" in a utopia/heaven therefore chalk one up to liberalism for trying to get there. never though i would say that awhile ago.
i like your comments mike but must disagree a bit and not all the way through. the very act of "building" a society necessitates change which is liberal at hears. a true conservative society would still be in the stone age at step one. or living in the garden of eden depending on point of view. although to much change to quickly can lead to the inevitable bad choices weighing down society and destroying it, that's why his point of the balance of conservative (slowing change) and liberalism (enacting change) is important in a successful society, so yes, liberals, and conservatives have been in every successful society as well as every failure. i'd say just left of center ideal.
I might have to watch it again, but I didn't say that conservatives build societies. He did. And then liberals try to make them better. An opressive dictator = conservative, a revolution = liberal. I understand that there is good in changing a backward society, but what about forcing a buisness owner to hire someone thats not qualified for a job because of the color of their skin? Change yes but good idea? There are good and bad to boths sides but as far as builing a society I still give it to conservatives and you cant get to a "utopia" with out a starting point.
To quote Matthew, "However, I wonder if liberals by eschewing three of five bases of morality are unwittingly leading societies to destruction. Perhaps the perfect human society is not possible as humans are not perfect."
Destruction is good if you are opressed I guess.
I don't think this test is an all encompassing example of what liberals/conservative feel. I think that it shows some trends but not ultimate ideals. I scored more on the liberal side and I think it is because of how I think about Authority and Purity. ]
I feel that purity/sanctity is based more on individual experience and personal feeling. Therefore I don't place high judgment on it because it varies and is a personal thing.
Concerning Authority, I have a problem with the idea that children or society should blindly follow anything. I think people should question and really seek out their ideas on issues. I also don't like the idea that large respect for authority seems to lessen the child, etc. I think at a certain age that child's opinion should be just as respected as the adults. When I voted, and maybe when most other liberal scoring people did as well, I didn't have in mind to bring down society and not listen to the law. Just maybe a more open minded view of authority and purity.
Children shouldn't follow blindly....really? I disagree completely. Children have to follow blindly because they have little or no comprehension of consequences. On a daily basis i tell austin not to do something like run into the street and he responds with, " but mom, i didn't get hurt." i really dont think thats a lesson he should learn on his own, so i make him do what i say even though he doesnt understand why. As a young adult, i think i still follow this rule. Ideally, i would know everything and have unlimited time to research topics i need to make a decision on but thats pretty much never the case. So, i look to people who i trust understand and know more, or have had
more life experience than i and yes "follow them blindly".
I was meaning children as in 18 and under, not necessarily two year olds. And of course I didn't mean with things like crossing the street etc. I wasn't taking about keeping children safe, I meant on social issues.
I tend to have concerns with parents potentially indoctrinating their young children with say their political views etc. Children are too young to have opinions on such hard hitting issue so should be free to learn about them without bias and be encouraged to form their own opinions. This actually happening is probably not a reality because most all things in life come served with a side of bias.
Like the ancient Asian religions saying we shouldn't be for or against issue, but everyone is and I'm okay with that. Just be open to new experience. But I guess that is the liberal in me.
I think the missing piece of the authority puzzle is trust or faith. I don't think even a child's obedience is blind (though as a parent we'd like it to be sometimes) because they love and trust the parent so they obey. The "blind" being tacked onto obedience is misleading at best because it does not connotate well the trust that was built beforehand. We as parents can betray that trust (through inconsistency etc.) and the child will learn to question the authority of parents or perhaps it's just a natural part of growing up (teenage thing). At any rate thinking for ones self is not in opposition to obedience. I think the non-religious concept analogous to blind obedience (though not perfect and in my opinion more dangerous) is following the crowd. No one seems to see that the non thinking masses are guilty of blind obedience on a load of social and moral issues just by following the social norm or the views of some celebrity. TV tells me to think this way it must by right... Anyway I don't think most people understand that they are blindly obedient in many ways out side of religion. They follow the crowd naturally and don't even have a basis for trusting or having faith in the correctness of the source.
Interesting views on obedience to authority. Let me try my hand at this.
I have been having a hard time with this lately. Obviously I want my children to obey me. I feel that I know better than they do what is in their self-interest. Like Heidi said: they don't have a clue, at this young age. The street is dangerous, be wary of strangers, don't eat poison.
However my problem comes when they say no, or why. "Because I said so" is an easy but damaging answer I think. It teaches what is, in my opinion, an unhealthy respect for authority, or at the very least we are committing the logical fallacy of an appeal to authority and teaching that error prone thinking to our children. Is it right because I said so? Or did I say so because it is right? This is an important distinction for us and our children to learn.
Now, I would like to teach my children a healthy non-respect for authority. Meaning this: that authority deserves no respect as it is not something to be respected but something to be obeyed. Stay with me here.
Authority should only be exercised upon those that have willingly given their consent to be led, governed, controlled by said authority. The individual, or society invests authority in whom they will. I feel it is also the right of the individual to revoke the authority they have given, and this is done at their prerogative. Think of examples such as Kim Jong Ill in N. Korea. Does his absolute authority deserve respect? England at the time of the American Revolution. Hitler. All these had almost absolute authority, none deserved respect. So I don't see respect for authority as a virtue in itself. we may respect those that we have given authority to; but authority is not to be respected, it is to be lived up to and earned.
In life however we constantly give our consent to create an authority, and to be ruled by said authority. These can be personal mentors, idols, leaders. They can be authority for a group as well. It is a useful shortcut in some instances because as Heidi said, we simply don't have time, intellect, ability to be experts in everything, or to make truly informed decisions. So we rely on our chosen or prescribed authorities to choose for us. This is true for a range of issues.
I feel however that we need to guard against laziness in our short-cutting and reliance on authority. History is clear that power/authority often has a corrupting nature. Ultimately I feel that the final authority should and does rest with the individual, and with this free will, or personal authority comes great responsibility to be informed, and we should try to come to our own conclusions on as many points as we can. This can be done I feel, if we have a few basic rules that guide our choices. We can then take new data and "plug it in to" our "program" of morality. For example, a simple rule of do no harm answers many questions. But even so simple a axiom sometimes gets confusing in morally/ethically ambivalent situations, and needs expansion.
So we give this authority freely. But what happens when we do not agree with our authority figure? Are we to conform, change, understand why we are wrong; or do we have the right (duty?) to be conscientious objectors? (This would avoid Aaron's (correct) observation of group-think and mob mentality.
Now, obviously civilizations/groups rely on an authority vested in a few chosen people; and that is fine as long as they have that authority given and sustained by the group's or civilization's consent. When an individual no longer consents then they can as far as is possible, rely on their own authority. Now obviously this only goes so far if you want the perks of say living in the USA you agree to abide by the current authority even if you disagree with its ideas and ideals. But that is the great thing about this amazing nation. We are allowed to dissent an let that be known to others. And that is a very beautiful thing.
I'm bleeding the discussion over to Loyalty as I think it applies to many of the ideas of Authority. I agree with the majority of what Matthew has said in his previous post about a healthy disrespect for authority. Though I don't think disrespect is the healthy word to use. I agree that authority is given and can be revoked. We have been given complete agency so we can even, in a sense, revoke even God's authority (within this definition) as we are not forced to comply to his will. The problem with the tyrants of history and today is that they try to force their authority, we as parents should not do the same. Where the views of my authority figures do not strongly conflict with my own views and beliefs I am loyal to them or better said their authority. Understanding that we all make our own mistakes and that right and wrong often smears and grays at their edges I can forgive others (or try to) their own understanding of the way things should be run or happen. Also realizing that I do not have all the pieces to the puzzle that they may have I trust them where I can.
An example:
We as a people voted for Obama as President. We will be a stronger nation if those who didn't vote for him accept this fact and support him insomuch as he does not violate the laws of this country. Sure disagree but do it without weakening this country. Authority has been given but we need not change our thinking to agree with all the actions of that authority.
Another:
If our country goes to war and a minority does not agree with that action should they weaken America and jeopardize our solders lives by dissidence? Or should they support the decisions of the more informed government that we (they) elected? Again their is no requirement to change ones believe structure.
-----------------
A question or rhetorical comment on Matthew's statement:
So we give this authority freely. But what happens when we do not agree with our authority figure? Are we to conform, change, understand why we are wrong; or do we have the right (duty?) to be conscientious objectors?
What allows us to change our views when we think we are right but we are actually wrong? What acts as a counter balance to our own understanding? Is it just more knowledge or does that respect for authority allow us to be conscientious objectors? What if we accept no authority in a certain field, can we be conscientious objectors?
Post a Comment