Moral Foundations Theory

[JustinReilly]

People's ideologies tend to shift rightward as they age -

Are you sure about this? The main reason old people are more right wing, is that society are becoming more left wing over time, but people are retaining the same views they had when they were young. Young people seem left wing now, but in fifty years when they have the same opinions as they do now they'll seem right wing.

Where on earth are you living? Here in the States we've been charging to the right in lockstep for thirty years now. The modern Democratic party makes the Nixon administration look like a Trotskyist commune.

[Fake robot]

Gay marriage is getting legal and drugs are starting to get legal and you guys have a black president. Would not have happened 50 years ago.

[Razmoudah]

Those first two have more to do with Authoritarian vs. Libertarian in the Political Alignments, not Right-Wing vs. Left-Wing. As for a black president...........WHAT THE FUCK!! That has absolutely nothing to do with Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Authoritarian, Libertarian, or anything else non-racist you wish to place as a part of politics, ethics, or morals. I'm almost ashamed to think I'm a fan of the same comic as you and a member of the same forum as you for that single comment. Now, if you'd said a president who has massively over-abused the power of the Executive Order to try and act like a dictator, who has trampled over any opinion that differs from his and picked a bunch of psychophants for his closest advisors, who has practically gone out of his way to alienate every single one of our allied nations who don't individually have the military strength to hurt us in a war, and is mentally unstable enough to think that if there weren't term limits for presidents he'd be an automatic shoe-in for a re-election despite having the lowest popularity of an active president ever, I would have to completely agree. Obama is all of those things, his skin color has nothing to do with it and he has single-handedly guaranteed that we couldn't even elect someone just as good and righteous as Martin Luther King Jr. if he happened to be black for at least the next 20 years, maybe the next 32 years, and possibly even the next 44 years, basically until the majority body of voters don't remember the disaster of the Obama administration and most haven't heard the horror stories.





Getting back on topic.....I'm not entirely sure I can rank the degree of importance those have for me. In fact, to me anyone who can definitively rank some as more important and some as less important are potentially mentally disturbed, especially anyone who favors one so heavily that they don't feel that one, or more, of the others matter. If you want to argue against Authority, what about when a disaster strikes and Police are trying to direct people out of the area so that other emergency workers can get in and help people? If you say that is Care I have to disagree, that is where Care and Authority overlap. I can easily point out situations for all six like that, meaning that for me ultimately all six matter equally. Instead I contest a portion of the descriptions used for them instead. At their crudest those would be accurate, but really they need to be expanded out and modified quite a bit. After all, based on the way Care reads it makes it sound like someone who values Care is against doctor assisted suicide for terminally ill patients. But are those people against euthanizing a pet that is terminally ill? No, because it is "inhumane to force them to suffer", but they'll make people suffer when there is no hope for a cure in time to save them.

I personally value balance above all else, and to me that means that none of those values can truly be held above any of the others, and to put it to Tailsteak, only by valuing all of them equally can you truly help the greatest possible number of people while harming the fewest others, for there will be times you must protect those who can't protect themselves and thus must cause harm to prevent greater harm.

[JustinReilly]

Gay marriage is getting legal and drugs are starting to get legal and you guys have a black president. Would not have happened 50 years ago.

Jackbooted Fascists don't have to be racist homophobes to still be jackbooted Fascists.

[Fake robot]

Jackbooted Fascists don't have to be racist homophobes to still be jackbooted Fascists.

Agreed. But I think religion and racism is connected with right wing economics in many countries including USA. I think many people vote republican because they are against gay marriage or against abortion or they are racist. I think most people who support Trump are racist.

I think the average american has gotten less conservative and less right wing in the last 50 years. Consider at the relative popularity of Sanders. Would not have happened 50 years ago.

it and he has single-handedly guaranteed that we couldn't even elect someone just as good and righteous as Martin Luther King Jr. if he happened to be black for at least the next 20 years, maybe the next 32 years, and possibly even the next 44 years, basically until the majority body of voters don't remember the disaster of the Obama administration and most haven't heard the horror stories.

I think you are wrong. W was worse and he was white. I just googled some aproval ratings. Obama has 50 percent now, W had 37 percent in his second term.

I think the two party system is making USA more right wing. The democrats "has to" be pretty close the Republican party because they want the voters just to the left of the republican party. They don't have to worry so much about the voters that are far left of the Republican party because those voters don't have much of an alternative to voting Democrat.

[JustinReilly]

I think the average american has gotten less conservative and less right wing in the last 50 years. Consider at the relative popularity of Sanders. Would not have happened 50 years ago.

Please. 50 years ago we had Johnson pushing the Great Society. Sanders couldn't dream of implementing programs on that scale. Really, he's not that far from the Tip O'Neil crowd in the 80's. He just has to call himself a Socialist to differentiate himself from the post-Clinton Democrats.

I think you are wrong. W was worse and he was white. I just googled some aproval ratings. Obama has 50 percent now, W had 37 percent in his second term.

Approval ratings mean nothing. Obama has increased the abuses of Executive power from the Bush administration in almost every regard. He gets higher ratings because Dems don't want to call out 'their guy' for doing the same shit W did. I agree that the two-party system is terrible, but it doesn't have a rightward bias. It drug everyone hard left in the 30's through to the mid 50's..

[Razmoudah]

Hmmmm.....I'll admit that I don't have a source for it, but I had heard a few months ago that Obama has the lowest popularity ever. This isn't approval rating. This is how much people like him, not how much they like his policies. I saw a satirical joke one time that the U.S. Presidential Election is the world's largest popularity contest, and to a fair degree I have to agree with that joke. The one who gets elected isn't the one with a record to back worthiness for the office, it isn't the one who wants policies that most of the country favors (although that does help), it is the one that the people like the most.

[MugaSofer]

If political ideologies are linked to these foundations, does that mean that the more popular ideologies and the more popular politicians will be the ones who appeal to as many of the six as possible? Is it possible to craft a movement or an ideology that values all six evenly?

Haidt found that "liberals" only care about the "care" foundation, while "conservatives" value all five. This is, obviously, nonsense, because the whole made-up field is bunk and Haidt is a fraud, but that's the model.

Also, "sanctity" means "some things are just gross", not "some things are worth protecting". Misleading name.

People's ideologies tend to shift rightward as they age -

Are you sure about this? The main reason old people are more right wing, is that society are becoming more left wing over time, but people are retaining the same views they had when they were young. Young people seem left wing now, but in fifty years when they have the same opinions as they do now they'll seem right wing.

Where on earth are you living? Here in the States we've been charging to the right in lockstep for thirty years now. The modern Democratic party makes the Nixon administration look like a Trotskyist commune.

Left-wing economics was dead right up until Sanders appeared, may still prove dead - but so is "right-wing" libertarianism. Corporate welfare rules.

Left-wing social programs march on at breakneck speed. (On the one hand, this is good. On the other hand, it emboldens people to throw others under the bus.)

Obama ran on an anti-gay-marriage platform. Today, even Republican candidates are reluctant to speak out against it.

[DanielH]

[Haidt found that "liberals" only care about the "care" foundation, while "conservatives" value all five. This is, obviously, nonsense, because the whole made-up field is bunk and Haidt is a fraud, but that's the model.

Models like this are usually made-up bunk, but this one seemed to have actual evidential support when I briefly looked at it. Can you give more detail about this?

[Razmoudah]

Most psychological models start off as made-up bunk. The real question is does he have any evidence that supports it, and is he working on refining it to help it better fit the real-world. Yes, that imbalance between liberals and conservatives is definitely worrisome in the current working model structure, but it doesn't mean that its basic concepts aren't valid, even if it needs a lot of work to get better representative results. That, and there is a lot of potential overlap in those areas, which means that how someone views something, as one area over another, is going to sway results a lot unless you can either create hard definitions or modify things to allow it to count towards multiple areas without unbalancing everything. In many respects this is a very subjective theory, but it is rather difficult to be objective with a subject like morals so it's more a matter of how he manages to account for the subjective nature of the subject to create objective results (which is actually possible, but I won't spoil the surprise just yet for those who would like to attempt to figure it out for themselves).