The "Moral Matrix"

[sr71plt]

I have a bee I'd like to get rid of and a bonnet for rent--if that will help here.

 

[Pure]

nice summary, kev. now did you have anything to say by way of applying these points to some of the issues i've raised (aside from abortion), for instance i gave a formulation of pacifism and a position on assisted suicide.

 

[Verdad]

Hi, Kev, thanks for the welcome.

Your summary is somewhat helpful, but I'm still stumped by some of the connections you make in your posts. Before we even begin talking, let's make sure it's understood what Haidt is and isn't talking about.

He is talking about a propensity for making certain kinds of 'moral' judgments, which according to him might be wired in the human brain.

The sense of "innate" which applies to his thesis, however, is not even on the same planet with the sense implied in, "Oh my God, the morality is right there in the embryos and the scientists say so too!"

I'm horrified anyone would try to present it that way, so let me make this clear:

The propensity Haidt proposes is, first of all, hypothetical. It's something he postulated after examining a number of morality-related beliefs and practices. It is not something he 'discovered' as one discovers a new cerebral formation or the function it performs.

Secondly, if Haidt's hypothesis were correct and this propensity were hardwired, it would be no different than a number of other organizational schemes that make a human brain a human brain. It wouldn't make humans any more or less marvelous than they already are.

Thirdly, as a function of human brain, this propensity would be a function of a developed human brain. It would have nothing whatsoever to say about embryos.

Whatever our current standards as to when a life becomes a person—whatever our religious beliefs, gut hunches, or idle speculations about it, too—Haidt's hypothesis, if proven true, would have no bearing on the subject at all. Anyone unwilling to take my word on it, can read the article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

 

[amicus]

no, amicus, you lose, since you care not a whit if such 'entity' [person? individual?] has access to free medical care or public education.

you care not a whit is s/he imbibes mercury from the industrial plant up river, since you oppose emissions regulations by the evil gov't.

you'll talk to said 'entity' as a teen, about abstinence, but you wouldn't want to gov't to provide her [and sexually active friends] a vaccine against HPV, and maybe prevent her getting cervical cancer.

and if said invaluable individual should, one friday night, get a bit drunk and kill another person, you don't hesitate to march him or her to the gallows.

==
incidentally, as a point of US constitutional law, 'entities' [fertilized eggs] are not covered or even spoken of, just persons. and as ayn rand pointed out, the fertilized egg, like the embryo or young fetus [first and second trimester], is definitely NOT a human person, but [only] potentially one.

\

~~~


For those of you who consider aborting a child a, 'necessary evil', and wish it were not so, and I have read of many expressing that thought; in the event you would like to understand a non religious point of view that considers abortion as a crime, I offer the following:

I recently underwent a medical procedure for bladder cancer which necessitated lying flat on my back, knees up, feet in stirrups, as the physician inserted a catheter with a camera attached to view the internal malady.

I compare that to a 'D&C" procedure, an abortion,(confirmed by the physician), in all aspects, not a very pleasant experience. One that a person would not readily choose to undergo, aside from the cost and pain, but for moral considerations.

For those who, for whatever reason, have rejected Divine edicts handed down from on high, that God created life and it is sacred and can neither be prevented from occuring, (contraception), or terminated, (abortion), unless the life of the mother is at risk; if you reject faith as a means to determine the morality of any human action, where then do you turn for moral guidance?

I offer objective, scientific method, reason and logic as a means to an anwer.

There can be no rational objection to the premise that human life begins at the moment of conception, simply because it can be called nothing else, it is what it is.

See my earlier literary masterpiece in presenting a light hearted foundation describing the wonder of procreation and how the act and result of procreation axiomatically provides the basic premise and foundation for a rational and ethical system of human morality.

A new human life begins the instant egg and sperm join and begin as a separate entity, that of a new human life; it can be nothing else.

If you want the psychologically secure ability to judge a right and wrong, moral position, then you must adhere to reason and logic and begin to create an hierarchy of values based on the primacy of human life as the basic premise.

Once you truly comprehend the beauty and sanctity of the 'truth' concerning the beginning of human life, then the additional values and virtues can be determined.

Without that basic and fundamental acknowledgement that human life is the primary value in your moral system, you are left with such obscenities as practiced by fascists and socialists who have no regard for individual human life and will control, manipulate and sacrifice the individual for the greater good of the commune.

Reality is a harsh mistress. A human life, created through rape or incest, remains a human life and takes moral precedence over the choice of the female. That is why, throughout history, men have acted to protect their women, their wives and daughters. That is why every moral system in the world speaks and acts against rape and incest.

Just as we legislate against fraud, theft and murder, and punish those who break those laws and perpetrate crime on an indivudal, so too, does society act to punish those who rape and molest the female.

But we do not, in most cases, punish the victim of crime.

An unborn human life is the victim of crime. One does not 'kill' it as it is not culpable in the eyes of the law.

Pure, Deezire and others too numerous to mention, exemplify the old, 'bleeding heart liberals' and that cacophony of concern about the greater good of society in accepting, welcoming and nourishing a new human life.

They skirt the issue that the totalitarian state only claims to be responsible for cradle to grave sustenance of the individual.

"...no, amicus, you lose, since you care not a whit if such 'entity' [person? individual?] has access to free medical care or public education..."

Pure, desires, salivates over, a communal control of the individual; even makes it appear unthinkable that the parent assumes the responsibility for a new life, not the state.

Pure would sit back in ideological heaven if the Chinese Communist practice of a, 'one child policy to control population', were imposed on America.

He, and others, would nod in agreement as forced abortions were imposed on any individual woman daring to have more than the permitted one child, common practice in modern day China.

'If only we could control everything..' sings Pure, et al, in two part harmony so that each child born is wanted and provided for and loved, from cradle to grave, ah, the proletariat would sing your praises.

As if we do not have enough examples in history to blatantly display the horrors of such statist, communal societies, Pure gets on his soapbox and shouts, 'lets do it again!'.

Sad. And Sick.

You folks with no moral system need to get over the death of God, dismiss your relativistic moral vacuum and embrace the new era of reason and rationality in your ethical considerations.

If not, and if you end up in a communal society where your rights are sacrificed for the 'greater good', at least you can look back and note that Amicus warned you.

Amicus...

 

[Verdad]

Hi there, Ami,

I've read enough of your posts to know it's often fun to read you but always pointless to argue with you.

I'll address two of your points just so you don't think I have you on ignore:

A human life, created through rape or incest, remains a human life and takes moral precedence over the choice of the female.

I'm impressed you said this, for that's, indeed, the logical conclusion of the 'sanctity of life' argument. To anyone who climbs on that horse, I like to say the following:

Imagine it's your mother/sister/wife/daughter; imagine she's been raped by an insane retard; imagine the result, while viable, will have deformations; imagine hers, the mother's, chances of surviving the delivery are minimal. Imagine all that at once, and then imagine letting it happen.

Because, if it's a human person right from the conception, if it's never permissible to take the life of a human person, if it's even less permissible when it's a so-called 'innocent' life, this is how far you have to go to defend your belief. Anything less, and you're being disingenuous.

And that is still not all.

Suppose you are so saintly that you would do as above. Your convictions about life are so strong you'd rather die than kill in self-defense, too. Hell, suppose you're even willing to starve to death sooner than harm a single chicken. Do you have the hubris to impose that standard on another?

Pure, desires, salivates over, a communal control of the individual; even makes it appear unthinkable that the parent assumes the responsibility for a new life, not the state.

This, and the rest of your post is decidedly odd, given that my stance, on this issue at least, coincides perfectly with the libertarian. Get the state out of the womb.

Cheers,
V

 

[amicus]

Hello, Verdad, it is such an emotional issue, isn't it?

In the United States, the 'State' comes into play in matters of the womb, only when one of the innate human rights is threatened; that of life.

Those of us who write, legislate, enforce and judge the laws of the nation are bound by the law of the constitution to protect life, liberty and the pursuit.

US law was originally based on many precendents, including the Ten Commandments, like it or not, among many other sources of common and capital law.

Theology in most religions defines life as 'sacred', created by God and not to be tampered with by man. With the waning of religious influence at all levels, man has looked elsewhere to determine his moral foundations.

The means by which I arrive at moral decisions, intellectually anyway, is through rigorous rational, objective seeking for truth. It is the only means I have discovered to replace the 'absolute faith' of the religious with something on the order of reason and rationality.

Since about the 1950's, there has been a gradual change in how society views sexual intercourse; it has moved to where sex is for pleasure, recreational, a social event without consequences.

It is an era of change in which the pendulum has swung greatly in one direction but shows signs of slowing and perhaps reversing course.

I am just one of many who question the more promiscuous approach to casual relationships and casual sex. I try to do so in a reasonable manner that I can explain and defend, while most just rant and rave that they are right and I am inhuman, heartless and uncaring, none of which is true.

I regret you find my positions emotionally challenging, I only seek to know where this world is heading in the absence of divine providence.

Amicus...

 

[Verdad]

Well, the issue, as you say, is certainly emotional, but not particularly so for me personally. It rather seems my rational consideration leads to drastically different conclusions than your rational consideration. Go figure.

Thanks for the reply, though, Ami. We're not likely to agree on many things, but neither do I bear you any ill will.

 

[Pure]

corrections as to fact

note to amicus. your post has misrepresentations so vast and so obvious that i'm sure some discussants simply do not want to embarrass you.

in particular, your statement: In the United States, the 'State' comes into play in matters of the womb, only when one of the innate human rights is threatened; that of life.

in brief, see below, the unquickened fetus, prior to 1850, and thus in the view of the founders such as Jefferson, and in view of British judicial tradition, enjoyed no protections at the federal level and scarcely any at the state level.

[indeed the Catholic church throughout most of its history did not consider it to be murder to terminate the unquickened fetus. the aberration from that history began in the late 19th century. the timeline below gives 1869 as the date that Pius IX abandoned the concept of ensoulment of the fetus, ie. eliminated the quickening criterion:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm ]


your second statement is rather misleading as well: Those of us who write, legislate, enforce and judge the laws of the nation are bound by the law of the constitution to protect life, liberty and the pursuit.

the US constitution makes no mention of 'life liberty and the pursuit of happiness': that's the PRE constitutional document the Declaration of Independence. the Bill of Rights, of course, does address questions of liberty, e.g. arbitrary detention, arrest without warrant, etc. A right of privacy, too, is stated regarding 'unreasonable searches and seizures.'. From the rights of liberty and privacy, follow a woman's rights to employ birth control and undertake abortions for a number of health- and happiness- related reasons, prior to the last trimester.

it's also clear that abortion control, from a libertarian perspective, is a matter of the states' determination, and PRIOR to Roe, a third of states [see below] had enacted allowances substantially more permissive than 'life of the mother.' amicus' fondness for STATIST interventions in matters that get him very emotional shouldn't distract from a basic point: aside from particular concerns of the last trimester, concern for liberty and privacy dictates: *keep the state OUT OF the wombs of its women.* these women's lives, actual citizens' lives, actual persons' lives, take absolute priority over any speculative claims on behalf of extralegal human entities such as eggs, fertilized or not.


http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/crs_abortion_overview.shtml

[Overview of Abortion Law in the US; History]

[verbatim text excerpt, start]
I. Development and Status of the [U.S.] Law Prior to 1973

The law with respect to abortion in mid-19th century America followed existing common law of England in all but a few states. 4 Thus, no indictment would occur for aborting a fetus of a consenting female prior to "quickening." But, by the time of the Civil War, an influential anti-abortion movement began to affect legislation by inducing states to add to or revise their statutes in order to prohibit abortion at all stages of gestation. By 1910, every state had anti-abortion laws, except Kentucky whose courts judicially declared abortions to be illegal. In 1967, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia classified the crime of abortion as a felony. The concept of "quickening" was no longer used to determine criminal liability but was retained in some states to set punishment. Nontherapeutic abortions were essentially unlawful.

The states varied in their exceptions for therapeutic abortions. Forty-two states permitted abortions only if necessary to save the life of the mother. Other states allowed abortion to save a woman from "serious permanent bodily injury" or her "life and health." Three states allowed abortions that were not "unlawfully performed" or that were not "without lawful justification", leaving interpretation of those standards to the courts.


This, however, represented the high water mark in restrictive abortion laws in the United States, for 1967 saw the first victory of an abortion reform movement with the passage of liberalizing legislation in Colorado. The movement had started in the early 1950s and centered its efforts on a proposed criminal abortion statute developed by the American Law Institute as part of its Model Penal Code that would allow abortions when childbirth posed grave danger to the physical or mental health of a woman, when there was high likelihood of fetal abnormality, or when pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.


Between 1967 and the Supreme Court's 1973 decisions in Roe and Doe, approximately one-third of the states had adopted, either in whole or in part, the Model Penal Code's provisions allowing abortions in instances other than where only the mother's life was in danger. Also, by the end of 1970, four states (Alaska, Hawaii, New York, and Washington) had repealed criminal penalties for abortions performed in early pregnancy by a licensed physician, subject to stated procedural and health requirements.

The first U. S. Supreme Court decision dealing with abortion was rendered in 1971. In United States v. Vuitch, the Court denied a vagueness challenge to the District of Columbia abortion statute. 5 The net effect of the Vuitch decision was to expand the availability of abortions under the D. C. law's provision allowing abortions where "necessary for the preservation of the mother's... health."


II. The Supreme Court's 1973 Abortion Rulings Between 1968 and 1972, the constitutionality of restrictive abortion statutes of many states was challenged on the grounds of vagueness, violation of the fundamental right of privacy, and denial of equal protection. These challenges met with mixed success in the lower courts. However, in 1973, the Supreme Court issued its rulings in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. In those cases the Court found that Texas and Georgia statutes regulating abortion interfered to an unconstitutional extent with a woman's right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.

The Texas statute forbade all abortions not necessary "for the purpose of saving the life of the mother." The Georgia enactment permitted abortions when continued pregnancy seriously threatened the woman's life or health, when the fetus was very likely to have severe birth defects, or when the pregnancy resulted from rape. The Georgia statute required, however, that abortions be performed only at accredited hospitals and only after approval by a hospital committee and two consulting physicians.

The Court's decisions were delivered by Justice Blackmun for himself and six other Justices. Justices White and Rehnquist dissented.

[verbatim text, end of excerpt]

 

[Pure]

Famous essay: A fetus IS a human person; BUT the mother has a choice.

A well known philosopher, who is a woman, wrote this essay. She STARTS from the premise that the embryo/fetus is a human person. But she argues that the ordinary lines of reasoning that call for restriction of choice are defective. Based on some striking analogies, she argues that the mother's rights prevail; that some abortion choices are not wrong despite the ending of a human life.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

 

[amicus]

"Bloodletting" until about mid 19th century was considered a possible treatment for all kinds of ailments, and rather parallels the concept, 'quickening', which means the first movements of the fetus in the womb.

Ignoring the intervening century and a half, our beleagured abortion proponent defends the medical practioners lucrative procedure of killing babies in the womb. Talk about embarrassment, one should be ashamed of devoting such effort towards maternal genocide when there is so much more that medical science might be engaged in.

In the insane rush for gender equality, ERA, emasculating femine independence from the male and the corresponding dependence on government largesse.

Instead of concentrating on the beneficial procedures to improve pre natal care to both mother and child and even conduct inter uterine procedures to correct gestational fetal problems, our baby killing advocates prefer to continue to abort the promiscuous errors of a general of irresponsible females who dallied once too often.

As so many know and understand the miracle of conception and treat each child as a blessing, a continuance of family lines, a joy to behold, all the old cliche's that once applied to childbirth and the nurturing of a child, there are those who actively promote the casual destruction of a human life.

When that generation is remembered, it will be for many things, the drug usage, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, the destruction of the family, the growth of the nanny state as women turn their children over to others, but most of all, that generation will be remembered in history for killing millions of children in utero.

The children of the 'great generation', that saved the world from totalitarianism and sustained and continued the concept of human freedom and respect for life have discarded human values in favor of a hedonistic, self centered pursuit of pleasure that revels the collapse of Rome.

Pure takes on the self proclaimed mantle of speaking for this forlorn generation, and purports to be engaged in an honorable pursuit.

Think again.

Amicus...

 

[wmrs2]

This is an interesting speech by a moral psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, who attempts to explain our predispositions and how they lead to divisions like liberal versus conservative values (conservatives, please stick it out to the end--he's talking to mostly liberals, so some things he says may seem slanted, but there's a method to this that doesn't become clear until near the end).

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Many fascinating points were shoved into this speech, sometimes only mentioned for five seconds, and I'd really like to see a discussion on many of these. If you want to discuss a specify part, please reference it (even quote it for easy reference), so others can see what you are talking about.

I have tons of editing to do, but I'd like to begin with more insight into a hot topic that's been bothering me: abortion. This may not seem like it's related to his speech until you get to 4:40 into the speech where he says, "Let's start at the beginning. What is morality and where does it come from?" He goes on to state that the "blank slate" idea for newborns is the worst idea to come along, and he reveals modern research that shows (proves?) that at the earliest measurable stages of life, we have innate abilities to know and judge morality on a basic scale. Much of this is even shared with the (lower) animal kingdom. To paraphrase him, "newborns come into the world already knowing so much about their physical and social roles, and programming to make certain things easier or more difficult to learn." He quotes a researcher, Marcus, who talks about the "first draft" of the moral mind. "The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience...Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises...'Built-in' does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience."

This research comes from scientists, not religious nuts with some faith to sell you. This marvelous potential does not just magically appear when the newborn breathes air for the first time, or is spanked on the bottom by the doctor; this potential develops from the first spark, when a good-for-nothing-by-itself sperm meets a good-for-nothing-by-itself egg, and cells begin to divide tasks and develop things like a nervous system. It bothers me to think this process isn't happening from the very beginning, that it doesn't take all nine months to happen. It makes me wonder how we can claim a fetus has any less potential than a newborn, and is any less magical and precious. This thinking simply is not worth the risk of being wrong.

Am I overreacting and suggesting we should forcefully try to abolish all abortions? Of course not. But we should educated children with the latest research so that by the time they have any choice, they can make the right one. Pro-choice thinking should go something like this: "I have the choice whether or not to have sex; I have the choice whether or not to have unprotected sex; I have the choice to be responsible or not for the life growing inside of me, by either keeping or giving the child up for adoption; but there is no morally right choice in terminating a pregnancy, this magical life with all its potential." IMO, this should be societal-wide reasoning, independent of religious or government intervention (but I know that's the ideal, not the reality). In cases of rape or the mother's impending death, the sacrifice should be made with full knowledge (yes, it's a tough choice; one that hopefully can be supported by friends and family to help ease that burden).

No vile responses here, please--this is not intended to be an us-versus-them spitting match--and I'd also like to hear your thoughts on any of the other topics covered in the speech. Let's have a positive discussion, where thoughtful responses rule over ignorant knee-jerks.

He quotes a researcher, Marcus, who talks about the "first draft" of the moral mind. "The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience...Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises...'Built-in' does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience."

A very good summation of what life is really like and a very good observation. To the objective mind, this observation has been made by the most capable philosophical minds of past history; but modern science does now champion this previous observation of nature and nature's God. Yet, we are somewhat concerned that such a new objective observation is dirtied in that you feel you must make the following comment:This research comes from scientists, not religious nuts with some faith to sell you.

Can you not admit gracefully that religion has brought to you real truth and you have in the past rejected this truth out of what must be viewed as evil feelings? The seers of the religious right have had a premise to challenge the right to choose. The right to choose society has had a faulty premise of reasoning by which to choose. This brings into question of who are the real nuts?

There was no need for this comment about nuts. It opens a window that suggest there is a subjective negative bias towards those in the past that have made this observation in the past that science is just now making. It does show threads of the old saying that truth hurts. This truth, however, opens the door for conservatives to rejoice in the fact that they have been correct in their "nut" like observations of the past. As science advances, many of the observations made by religious seers will become more sensible over the resentment and protest of the "liberal" mind.

What follows next after the protest of the liberal mind? It is the attempt to prove the stance the liberals have taken on abortion was nevertheless the truly moral position that has taken place place in the freedom to chose society all along. Well, this new scientific observation removes and destroys the old premises of the freedom to chose society, showing that their thinking was based on faulty assumptions all along. The true intellectual and reasonable course to follow would be to change the liberal moral direction in reference to abortion. You must consider that abortion is not a choice but is what actually the conservative has been saying all along, that it is murder.

The choice is not whether you support freedom of choice but whether you will base your morals on factual information that was at one time observed only by the seers of society or continue to support morality based on the same faulty and evil information of the past.

Am I overreacting and suggesting we should forcefully try to abolish all abortions? Of course not.

Logic and reasoning suggest just the opposite. You should consider that your moral premise has been abolished, therefore you should abolish all moral deductions made by a faulty premise. Freedom to chose society must change their moral stance on abortion to fit the new emerging premises for choosing life. If there are those who can not consider this new course, it is not from a rational premise but from an evil view of the world.

 

[wmrs2]

I assume he or the researchers were not interviewing fetuses in the womb to find their moral preferences.

There are all sort of absurd paradoxes if we try to assume that the instant of conception is the start of "human" existence. On the other hand, I personally feel that we are allowing abortions too late.

As for the rest of his talk -- as one who has always been notable lacking in respect for authority, patriotic fervor, any of those things -- back to my earliest childhood memories -- I would have to say that perhaps not all of us are born with the same balance of the five moral attributes. Maybe we have innate liberal and conservative tendencies. All I know that my enthusiasm for killing Commies for Christ was never very high. I thought Cub Scouts was an insufferable bore, and I never made it into the Boy Scouts. Even my members of kindergarten are that it was all a crock. I mention these early experiences because the reflect, if anything, what my innate moral tendencies might be.

So I would so say, from personal experience, that although we may have some these five moral traits ingrained in us, not all of us have them in equal measure. Probably, liberals represent a higher stage of moral evolution, where the more primitive, repressive moral preconditioning is fading away.

We really enjoyed your comments on abortion yet your summation of your testimony seems to contradict everything you say and rationally deduce from your new information about innate moral tendencies.

Probably, liberals represent a higher stage of moral evolution, where the more primitive, repressive moral preconditioning is fading away.

 

[JamesSD]

Many fascinating points were shoved into this speech, sometimes only mentioned for five seconds, and I'd really like to see a discussion on many of these. If you want to discuss a specify part, please reference it (even quote it for easy reference), so others can see what you are talking about.

Nice link, and great talk. I remember the study on liberal/conservative and openness to experience, which I always found striking.

A quote from the talk: "Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed; want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. Conservatives speak for institutions and traditions; want order even at cost to those at the bottom."

In many ways it relates back to the "Liberty vs. Equality vs. Order" argument of government. Taken individually, most people would argue all three of these are noble goals for government. However, most political issues stem from some level of disagreement between these principles. Conservatives are far more inclined to value order as highly or higher than the other two, while liberals are frequently not willing to sacrifice liberty or equality for the sake of order.

I actually felt like the posted subject material had little to nothing to do with abortion. Liberals and conservatives agree that in the third trimester of pregnancy a fetus has developed many traits we associate with personhood, and as such pregnancies should only be terminated during that period in the rare case where giving birth would likely kill the mother.

I'd say the points Dr. Haidt brings up support the idea that we've gotten to the point where Liberals and Conservatives aren't even speaking the same language any more, or minimally are having two different conversations. This often results in shocked disbelief when we find out what the conclusions the other group has come to, which are so very different than our own.

 

[wmrs2]

We believe you attermpt to be objective in your thinking but it is obvious to us from the beginning of this thread that you have been overly influenced by liberals.

Conservatives, by their very nature, are not completely opposed to a cautious form of change, but I agree with Haidt that they will sacrifice it for stability. They often seem so unmoving (especially relative to progressives) since their change may happen over many generations or may even be only a fraction of the progress they hope for (they use the fear of losing their stability as a check-balance, and I honestly cannot fault that reasoning, in and of itself). Often their ideals are stated like "this is the way it is and the way it will always be," but I believe this is more of a reactionary stance to the threat of too fast a change than something they believe in to the core (some are even scientists, after all).

You are not stating the point of view of how conservatives view the world but is how libeals view conservatives. You refer to conservatives and say "some are even scientists, after all." Well, the real difference between how conservatives and liberals see the world is this. The conservative is not willing to change his reasoning premises. If his premise is "thou shalt not kill" then he adheres to the premise. What is murder and what is not murder may be better clarified and this may effect a change. The premise of "thou shalt not murder" remains unchangebale.

The liberal, if he wants your land for the state, he uses the premise that it is moral to kill your ass for the good of the larger community and never considers the old premise of "thou shall not murder." The liberal changes the premise to suit the desires of his lust. This explains why liberals fall into so many traps of communism and socialism, systems that do not require moral codes that do not change. That is why in a truly free society, citizens are not willing to give up the moral codes of the past as outlined in the Constitution. Liberals seek to change these premises and any moral code that interfers with their right to fulfill their lust.

 

[amicus]

You may win this argument by default, wmrs2. Liberals, Leftists, socialists, social democrats, progressive democrats, democratic socialists, can not be pinned down as to being any one or all of the above.

Quite the same holds true for Conservatives, as they too, come in many guises, with some adhering to a faith based political ideology and some not.

Newt Gingrinch is one of the smartest men I ever met, but I cannot trust his instincts as he places God before Country, before reason and rationality.

I shuddered when I listened to former President Bush make religious pronouncements from the bully pulpit and although there is little chance of it, I would not like to see a true 'Fundamentalist' in the White House.

But then, we have a true, 'Socialist" in the White House now and I think nothing could be worse for human dignity than that.

I am enjoying your more refined debating tactics, much progress since your early posts here.

regards...


amicus...

 

[Pure]

haidt's dimensions

haidt noted five dimensions of morality, fairness, avoiding harm, in group loyalty, deference to authority and purity. liberals according to him are strong on the first two, and conservatives on the last three.

perhaps this is true, but it may be because of definitions, only. but leave that aside.

what i notice is that liberals so called, try for consistency. 'fairness' is invoked, for instance if black criminals get longer sentences or if a burglar who took $10,000 items from a store gets double the sentence of the bookkeeper who stole 20,000 from company accounts.

conservatives tend towards violent inconsistencies. they do NOT simply rely heavily on their three favorite dimensions; e.g. on 'respect for authority', etc. rather they employ them promiscuously and inconsistently. i will use our amicus as convenient, though he's no worse than falwell, dobson, the current pope.

amicus proclaims an entire morality based on protecting human life; in his secular fashion, it's sacred. so he wants fertilized eggs protected. he calls choice persons 'baby killers' and say i advocate killing the unborn.

yet like others, amicus is quite clear on the exceptions: where you MAY take or are even REQUIRED to take a human life. or you may demean one, gravely. examples:

1) he has no trouble with torture of terrorist suspects, including water boarding and who know what else.

2) he has no trouble forcing women to bear the rapist's child, or forcing 12 year olds to bear daddy's incest-conceived baby; demeanment of existing lives, in simple terms.

3) he has no trouble with death sentences generally, including for NON capital offences like child kidnapping without murder, and major ''drug lords."

4) he has no trouble with factories releasing toxins into the environment--i.e. no plan to prevent this--despite deaths and malformations of babies.

5) he has no trouble with the pope's and bush's approach to NOT furthering condom use in AIDS infected areas of Africa, knowing that thousands will die.

6) he has no trouble with distant pre emptive wars, such as iraq, where hundreds of civilians are killed in 'collateral damage', not to say american soldiers, for phantom gains.

and so on.

the conservative who talks of 'culture of life' will likely embrace a whole raft of positions where life is taken or harmed but which 'don't count.'

the conservative is a master of 'special pleading', e.g. a) harsh sentences for drug abusers, but NOT rush limbaugh; b) harsh sentences for thieves, but NOT executive thieves. c) execution of murderers, UNLESS they were US marines on tour of duty. and all the examples above.

this is semi understandable if there is simple 'traditionalism,' since traditions are complex.

but your 'pure capitalism' ideologue, such as amicus, who claims to deduce all morality from a few Randian principles such as supremacy of human life, does no better. d) after the railing against 'statism', you will NOT find ami losing a wink of sleep over President-ordered indefinite detentions of suspects without charges.

e) the 'pure Christian' who quotes the Bible as to 'love' will be happy to see half a village in Iraq leveled, in order, *possibly*, to kill one terrorist "key figure" in the Taliban.

f) the conservative Christian, again, says 'i love my neighbor', and amicus would echo, 'respect for life and liberty.' BUT then there's the exception: if the neighbor is gay or lesbian, you can be vile, and that 'doesn't count.'

 

[Kev H]

nice summary, kev. now did you have anything to say by way of applying these points to some of the issues i've raised (aside from abortion), for instance i gave a formulation of pacifism and a position on assisted suicide.

On pacifism and how if fits into the speech (in my opinion):

One of the interesting points about his "moral matrix" (even if his basic five categories aren't innate) is the brief mention of the equalizer (imagine each value is on a slider, and the combinations you get from a personal mix are very numerous). Regardless of whether or not we're born with them, these five categories of morals are fun to think about, especially in how they interact/conflict with each other (which may be one of the reasons we humans are complex and sometimes have conflicting feelings, because one value is competing against another).

For example, pacifism is topped out on the harm/care scale, to be sure, and it also has a strong showing of fairness/golden rule and purity/sanctity (of life). Yet, it flies in the face of in-group/loyalty, for if it were true that all groups formed to compete (i.e., kill) other groups, then the very concept is anathema to the pacifist, right? Also note that any authority that pushes a group behavior that is aggressive will not be honored/respected by the pacifists based on the extent of the first three values mentioned above. Is it possible that some of this concept is zero-sum, in that to gain in one trait (like authority), you must lose in another (like harm/care)?

 

[Kev H]

Hi, Kev, thanks for the welcome.

Your summary is somewhat helpful, but I'm still stumped by some of the connections you make in your posts. Before we even begin talking, let's make sure it's understood what Haidt is and isn't talking about.

He is talking about a propensity for making certain kinds of 'moral' judgments, which according to him might be wired in the human brain.

The sense of "innate" which applies to his thesis, however, is not even on the same planet with the sense implied in, "Oh my God, the morality is right there in the embryos and the scientists say so too!"

I'm horrified anyone would try to present it that way, so let me make this clear:

The propensity Haidt proposes is, first of all, hypothetical. It's something he postulated after examining a number of morality-related beliefs and practices. It is not something he 'discovered' as one discovers a new cerebral formation or the function it performs.

Secondly, if Haidt's hypothesis were correct and this propensity were hardwired, it would be no different than a number of other organizational schemes that make a human brain a human brain. It wouldn't make humans any more or less marvelous than they already are.

Thirdly, as a function of human brain, this propensity would be a function of a developed human brain. It would have nothing whatsoever to say about embryos.

Whatever our current standards as to when a life becomes a person—whatever our religious beliefs, gut hunches, or idle speculations about it, too—Haidt's hypothesis, if proven true, would have no bearing on the subject at all. Anyone unwilling to take my word on it, can read the article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Good food for thought, Verdad, though please don't make the erroneous assumption that anyone is taking the implications of this speech and then saying, "Oh my God, the morality is right there in the embryos and the scientists say so too!"

So while you perhaps come from too defensive of a standpoint, your conclusions are worth exploring in depth. I certainly agree with the shaky hypothesis; as I think and discuss more on it, I'm less convinced those traits are present in any significant fashion in the marginally-developed brain. Though, I disagree with you on your second contention that it would not make the brain any more or less marvelous than it already is. When you think you understand the function of something, and then discover it has yet another component to it, that tends to make us value it more (even if that degree may be very small; I mean how much more can you marvel at a brain when it is already...hmm, mind-boggling?). I used to hear that the brain's just the pinnacle of our nervous system, and while I am tolerant of that viewpoint, I feel it belittles our existence in a way that is truly disingenuous on their part. The more layers we discover in our brain, the more fascinating it is, and the more worthy of thought/consideration issues surrounding this should become.

I feel your third point is tied in so closely to the first point as to be indistinguishable--he certainly has not proved his point to you (heh, that much is crystal clear, and I cautiously agree with you). Though actually, let me correct myself--you seem to be saying that since an embryo brain isn't developed, then what a developed brain may or may not have innate about it is a non-issue. Did I restate that correctly?

ETA: Your link is a good read, particularly with other scientist's dissenting quotes, like those of Frans deWaal. And this: "The fact that liberals and conservatives disagree on the other three principles 'suggests to me that they are not general moral virtues but specific ideological commitments or values,' Dr. Jost said." However, I did not see anything in the link to justify your closing statement (as coming from this article).

 

[Kev H]

A well known philosopher, who is a woman, wrote this essay. She STARTS from the premise that the embryo/fetus is a human person. But she argues that the ordinary lines of reasoning that call for restriction of choice are defective. Based on some striking analogies, she argues that the mother's rights prevail; that some abortion choices are not wrong despite the ending of a human life.

http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Great article, and her first two paragraphs are wonderfully organized and well-stated (though I disagree with her comparison of the acorn to the fetus, and tree-to-human, in that the biological systems have no pertinent common grounds--sperm [pollen] does not simply drift through the air and fertilize the eggs that just happen to be hanging around, exposed; nor do the humans propagate themselves [as much as we tell them to go fuck themselves], nor do people lack any conscious choice about it in the standard cases under discussion [hell, a tree can't move out of the way to avoid a cloud of sperm, now can it?], and so on).

But from the twisted analogy of the violinist (comparing being kidnapped and unconsciously hooked into the process, to having sex and consciously making the decision every animal knows leads to new creation), we see her long slant. It is illogical to rely on an example that lacks a few fundamental similarities (like the conscious choice that came before)--this can only be marginally analogous to the rape cases (and surely we all hope those cases are resolved by something terrible happening to the guy and the woman getting as much gentle and kind support as she needs to make her choice, general ideologies aside).

Philosophically, she begins to support her arguments by only including her more extreme opponents, and this is never a fair or beneficial way to debate. It's not practical, and it only leads to more entrenchment, so I suggest that her entire piece isn't about convincing moderates more than it is to put another tool in the toolbox of the pro-choice side (and hey, I can't fault her for that, as long as she's being honest about what she's doing, and I don't know if she is or not, so I make no judgments).

The rest of the article falls prey to her slant, and until that is resolved, they are not worth the time to debate.

That being said, I do agree with her on the initial point that we need to stop arguing about whether or not a fetus is a person, and focus on whether or not we're willing to end that potential. The argument would not be any simpler or less heated, but at least it would be more concise.

 

[Kev H]

A very good summation of what life is really like and a very good observation. To the objective mind, this observation has been made by the most capable philosophical minds of past history; but modern science does now champion this previous observation of nature and nature's God. Yet, we are somewhat concerned that such a new objective observation is dirtied in that you feel you must make the following comment:This research comes from scientists, not religious nuts with some faith to sell you.

Hello, group poster. Do you mean to imply, by your objection to my statement that there does not exist any such thing as a "religious nut"? Consider it carefully, without prejudice, and you may be able to see exactly what I said and meant, rather than what you think I said (and do not lump yourselves into that category unless you embrace all it implies). Once you are to that point, you will understand when I say this: "Dirtied" is merely your slant, as I find that statement to be cleansing, the exact opposite. I felt it important to stress this was from viewpoints (at least I hope) of people who are interested in exploring the truth rather than having an agenda or dogma to defend.

If you took exception to my statement because you misunderstood the intent, then I apologize (I sometimes frustrate myself by not being as clear as I should be), yet if you dislike my statement because it reflects on your own faith, then you will get nothing more than a shrug from me, since I cannot (as of yet) in good conscience share that faith. My tolerance extends to anything you choose to do to yourself. Happy learning and growing.

 

[Kev H]

Nice link, and great talk. I remember the study on liberal/conservative and openness to experience, which I always found striking.

A quote from the talk: "Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed; want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos. Conservatives speak for institutions and traditions; want order even at cost to those at the bottom."

In many ways it relates back to the "Liberty vs. Equality vs. Order" argument of government. Taken individually, most people would argue all three of these are noble goals for government. However, most political issues stem from some level of disagreement between these principles. Conservatives are far more inclined to value order as highly or higher than the other two, while liberals are frequently not willing to sacrifice liberty or equality for the sake of order.

[...]

I'd say the points Dr. Haidt brings up support the idea that we've gotten to the point where Liberals and Conservatives aren't even speaking the same language any more, or minimally are having two different conversations. This often results in shocked disbelief when we find out what the conclusions the other group has come to, which are so very different than our own.

Thanks for the post, James. I agree Haidt isn't breaking much new ground here, but a worthy discussion always needs reformulating/restating to view it from various angles.

As to your closing statement, it certainly seems that way, eh? Yet I wonder if it's merely our perspective, that it's always been such since civilization developed. We know there's always been disagreements on points of a more philosophical nature (rather than disputes solely based on tangible things like land/borders) since written records have existed, and I suggest even back in the grunting might-makes-right days, these arguments were still around--they were simply repressed by the mightiest (and the weaker guys were not free to voice their opposition until society gave them the chance to do so).

 

[cantdog]

This is an interesting speech by a moral psychologist,
....
It bothers me to think this process isn't happening from the very beginning, that it doesn't take all nine months to happen. It makes me wonder how we can claim a fetus has any less potential than a newborn, and is any less magical and precious. This thinking simply is not worth the risk of being wrong.
.....
I have the choice to be responsible or not for the life growing inside of me, by either keeping or giving the child up for adoption; but there is no morally right choice in terminating a pregnancy, this magical life with all its potential." IMO, this should be societal-wide reasoning,
.............
No vile responses here, please--this is not intended to be an us-versus-them spitting match--and I'd also like to hear your thoughts on any of the other topics covered in the speech. Let's have a positive discussion, where thoughtful responses rule over ignorant knee-jerks.

Let's take a couple of these up.

Your emphasis was on the 'risk of being wrong.' But there is no explanation, here or in the speech, what this supposed 'risk' might consist in. In short, what risk? This is nonsense.

If he means the risk of being wrong, in itself, meh. I'm wrong quite a bit. I don't like it, but I take the risk hundreds of times a day. I never allow the risk of being wrong to prevent my making a decision, unless I think I can get more data and believe I lose nothing by waiting the time it takes to become better informed.

I think he means some other risk, a special risk that in some unspecified way inheres only to this decision. It might be nice to have some idea what risk this might be.

Shall we suppose that this 'magical' process begins at its beginning, as the speech and this excerpt suggest we do? It has no effect on the argument, because this concern, worried at for some seconds in the speech, is a straw man-- no one ever suggested that gestation doesn't begin at its beginning. That's the logic, but the emotional thrust of making the straw man argument is to bolster the second assumption, that the potential of a fertilized egg, two unified zygotes, is the same potential as a newborn's.

Well, clearly, it isn't. Many newborns die at ninety, many die only a few days old. Many fertilized eggs are dumped when they fail to implant, many will have died, been miscarried, or whatnot at some time in the course of gestation, because of many different causes. Statistically, then, the potential of a given fertilized egg is not equivalent. Most eggs pass through without even being fertilized, and an overwhelming proportion of sperm fail to achieve anything at all.

These terms, magical and sacred, are null terms, logically, and serve only to bolster the emotional appeal. He does so much gushing, asking us to wonder and marvel and hold to be magical, that I come away from the speech feeling that he wants his listeners to answer the question on emotion alone, attaching infinite value to magical processes. His 'Life' almost always has a capital letter, it's precious, it's magical, its potential is infinite and so is its value.

Life on the genuine planet Earth is much more about dinner. Everything exists, in the animal kingdom, to eat something else. I like living, but I do realize that I continue to do it in despite of many hundreds of thousands of organisms which raven for me, whether as nutrients or as a vehicle for their own reproduction. There's more than one disease for every part of me. In the end, many organisms will actually succeed in eating me (fewer if I leave directions to have the husk cremated). I suggest that Life is only Precious in a very limited way, to a limited group of other living beings, and wholly temporarily. This gushing over-sentimentalizing is not very convincing, especially for someone characterized as a moral philosopher.

I have the choice to be responsible or not for the life growing inside of me, by either keeping or giving the child up for adoption; but there is no morally right choice in terminating a pregnancy, this magical life with all its potential." IMO, this should be societal-wide reasoning,

Now let's have a look at these. There is no justification made by this philosopher to explain why the only moral choices involve bearing to full term. I have to supply the connection myself, and it seems to have to do with the Holy Magical Sacredness Of Life. If a natural process, gestation or any other process, has begun, I don't think a sane morality would make us stand off and helplessly allow the process to fulfill itself. I put out house fires for a living and rescued people from hazardous situations in an ambulance. I took action many times on the job to interrupt ongoing processes, however Magical, and I felt morally justified.

There is more happening in a pregnancy than a magical process of Life. There is the entire surround, beginning with the mother, whose risks, again statistically, based on facts, are considerable. They are so considerable that I think the man ought to consider them. He does not devote any vigor to that. For him, the purpose of morality is the preservation of that pair of united zygotes, and once they are present, the mother and all the rest of creation is only of secondary importance, even though they, too, posses a Magical and Sacred Wonder-inducing Life, each of their very own. His perspective is warped on this, but again he makes no moral argument why the fetus takes utter priority. I can only assume it's mostly because women generally don't count for very much.

 

[Kev H]

haidt noted five dimensions of morality, fairness, avoiding harm, in group loyalty, deference to authority and purity. liberals according to him are strong on the first two, and conservatives on the last three.

perhaps this is true, but it may be because of definitions, only. but leave that aside.

conservatives tend towards violent inconsistencies.

Heh, substitute the word "people" for "conservatives" and you will have my complete agreement. I know most of your post is a very fun rant, but I hope you do not actually believe they have a corner on the inconsistency market. You may make it a comparative term if you like, and then you'd have grounds for a healthy argument. For example you could say this: "Conservatives are far less consistent than liberals; show it isn't so if you don't agree!"

But putting all that aside, why leave aside the five dimensions of morality? Do you not agree with certain points? Some worth mentioning again? I go further than Dr Jost (in Verdad's linked article), and while I wonder if the first two traits are more-or-less common among humans, the last three might actually detract from the first two. In other words, "I dislike those who harm others, unless my ideology is being threatened" or "I care for those as long as they're in my group" or "I like fairness, but not if that means my football team loses" (heh, yes, I know it's a silly example, but there's far more serious/deadly examples out there). Perhaps, because people have moral alliances to the last three traits, they have less of the first two--cause and effect. Thoughts?

 

[Verdad]

Though actually, let me correct myself--you seem to be saying that since an embryo brain isn't developed, then what a developed brain may or may not have innate about it is a non-issue. Did I restate that correctly?

Yep, that's a correct restatement! To move away from the issue of abortion, though, which was kinda non-sequiturial anyhow and seems to be discussed on another gazillion threads anyhow, I've written some random thoughts on Haidt. For wherever they might take someone else, see below.

 

[Verdad]

I haven't read up on Haidt further than that one article, but I thought a bit of what he's really saying, and the following struck me.

If I'm not mistaken, the differences between liberals and conservatives aren't central to his work. His model can be put to that application, sure, because it's possible to look at group differences on any conceivable dimension. Let's not forget it's a selling point, too, because it gives his ideas a sense of relevance.

But, even though the names escape me, I'm pretty sure there's better research out there about the core values of various political options. Haidt's main idea, it seems to me, is something else:

The roots of morality are emotional rather than rational. For all the rational consideration we do so love to indulge in, it's our emotions that tell us what is right and what is wrong. Rational consideration follows, and in some cases, conflicts with the emotional base, but where it all starts is in the gut feeling. That is the sense of innate we're talking about.

The idea of emotionally based morality is, of course, not new, not to philosophers and not in common wisdom, where we often say it's important to do what feels right. Psychopaths provide us with an example of what happens when the emotional component is not there, too.

Haidt's contribution, and probably that of others working in a similar vein, seems to be in looking more concretely into the mechanisms of that, let's say, gut feeling. Teasing apart how much of it is truly innate and how much due to socialization—some would say, superego—is likely as futile a task as it always is with these nature vs. nurture things, but his model is somewhat interesting just the same.

Before I address the five dimensions he includes, I should maybe just give an example of what is meant by emotionally based morality.

Most all cultures agree it's wrong to, say, murder. And one could look at all the good reasons why people shouldn't kill each other and the chaos that would ensue if they did, and decide that it was clearly wise, i.e. practical, to put a ban on that. But, one could equally speculate that the emotional revulsion to murder came first, developed by the evolution, and everything that followed is just rationalization. The truth is likely somewhere in between, but the latter idea seems relevant for Haidt's model.

So, looking at morality related-beliefs and practices across cultures, he isolated five recurring themes, attempted to connect them with some basic emotions, and developed a questionnaire that can be found here. How valid a measuring instrument it is, I don't know, but a look at the items may clarify the content of its five dimension.

One dimension is Purity, and I'm starting from it because it appears very intuitive and possibly the most primal. The sense of 'purity' we're talking here is quite literal, as the items pertaining to it ask questions such as "Is it important that people don't do disgusting things?" It seems clear it would have arisen from survival-related emotions surrounding feeding, excretory, and sexual functions, evolving from something as basic as disgust into hundreds of rules and taboos surrounding the practices, as well as into beliefs about purity in the more abstract sense.

Next, there's Fairness, which seems to be related to the golden rule, i.e. to doing unto others as one would want to be done by, oneself. Mirror neurons seem to be all the rage, so maybe I'm just reaching for the hot explanation, but if one were to look for the primal root of the golden rule, it stands to reason one could find it there. Empathy seems like a readily available explanation of the fairness theme.

Next, there's Authority, and this I thought a bit of a misnomer. Judging from the items in the questionnaire, the content of Authority is not along the lines of Adorno's authoritarianism, hierarchical behavior, and obedience to authority, so much as along the lines of conformism. The questions asked pertain to following social mores, more than doing what the leader says. It seems, at any rate, that it should be explained by what Kev wrote about pack behavior.

Next, there's Group Loyalty, and I guess it's not mysterious where it comes from, given both the nature of the social animals and a lot of research that says we're predisposed to react favorably to those who share our genetic traits.

But then there's Harm, as in refraining from, and I have to admit I had most trouble thinking about it in wired in terms. Certainly, the same empathy and mirror neurons that would have led to the golden rule would have played a role here too, but it's impossible not to notice that harm, as in not refraining from, would have had clear evolutional benefits, too. It would have in fact, been a necessity—someone squeamish about harming would have made a poor hunter and a worse warrior. Perhaps I'm not quite clear on the overlap between Harm and Fairness and how independent they are, perhaps Haidt himself is getting hazy here, and perhaps this is where we come to an inherent conflict in the 'basic' human nature.

At any rate, that's my quick run through Haidt's five dimensions, but the implications haven't quite sat in place for me, yet. Maybe more thoughts will come, and maybe the implications just aren't that earth-shattering in the first place…