[ExI] Jonathan Haidt

[Lee Corbin]

Stathis wrote:

> [Spike numbered Haidt's principles:]
>
>> 1) Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.
>>
>> 2) Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain
>> rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.
>>
>> 3) In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of
>> threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues;
>> betrayal is bad.
>>
>> 4) Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order
>> is necessary for human life.
>>
>> 5) Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred.
>> Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety,
>> are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits
>> of lust and greed are all bad.
>>
>>
>> In general, the notion is that western society is approximately evenly
>> divided into two groups.  The western liberal or left would rank moral
>> impulses 1 and 2 higher than the other three, while the western
>> conservatives rank all five about evenly.
>>
>> In very general in my view, the eastern traditionalist view ranks 3, 4 and 5
>> well above 1 and 2.  It looks to me as though it would make the eastern
>> traditionalist the moral counterpart of the western liberal, and would make
>> the western conservative into a moderate between the other two.  If that is
>> the case, then I am puzzled why there apparently is more enmity between the
>> western conservative and the eastern traditionalist than between the western
>> liberal and the eastern traditionalist.
>>
>> Why?  How?  Do explain, without using the names of any particular religion
>> or creed, but rather seeing this as a cultural and sociological phenom.
> 
> The Western liberal's attitude towards Eastern traditionalists is
> softened by 2, while the conservative's attitude is hardened by 3.

Thanks, Stathis! You just saved me a lot of time and effort.

That is, I could have thought of that.    Well, probably.    Maybe. :)

 > > Do numbers 1 and 2 still apply to those who have numbers 1 and 2 not just
 > > turned down, but rather turned off?

 > Only those with antisocial personality disorder have
 > 1 and 2 turned off, and even then it is possible to
 > gain advantage by behaving well towards them in the
 > way it is sometimes possible to obtain advantage
 > through good behaviour in business.

This is actually *normal* business behavior, and *normal*
behavior of people who are actually (hidden) sociopaths,
but are so good at concealing their condition that
practical practitioners like you don't even classify
them as sociopathic (the way that the MRI scans do).

List for easy reference:

    1) Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.
    2) Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good
    3) In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of
       threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues.
    4) Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy.
    5) Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred.

Spike again:

 > > Does tolerance extend to the intolerant?

Apparently  :-(

 > > If so, do not the tolerant realize this ultimately is a
 > > losing strategy?

Arrogance mainly. They think that they can get their
values to prevail in every country and every era,
if they're just given enough time. "History is on
their side."  Well, a lot of people we hardly remember
suffered from that delusion.

But beyond arrogance is a complete lack of informed
knowledge (or at least appreciation) of how hard it
was (and is) to get (1) and (2) institutionalized in
civilization.

Oh, sure, earlier kings would claim they were all in
favor of (1) and (2), but they couldn't develop the
rule of law and respect for property that make "justice
and fairness" possible.

Lee