[ExI] META: Overposting (psychology of morals)

[Damien Sullivan]

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:06:46PM +0000, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Giulio Prisco wrote:
>> I don't see why we should refrain from discussing important things.
>>
>> I am very interested in the libertarian trend, but the problem is that
>> it always degenerates into a hormone-driven fight between
>> fundamentalist libertarians and fundamentalist anti-libertarians. I
>> wonder why it is like that.
>>   
>
> I think it can be explained by Jonathan Haidt's moral foundations theory  
> and Phil Tetlock's sacred values theory. Basically, libertarians and  
> anti-libertarians step on each other's sacred values.

I recently ran into an extreme case of this:
http://volokh.com/2011/02/15/asteroid-defense-and-libertarianism/

Sasha Volokh saying it would be immoral to tax people to save the human
race from an asteroid.  Natural disasters don't violate rights, after
all.  The fun bit is that Volokh does grant taxees for fighting crime or
defensive war, on the grounds fo minimizing overall rights violation,
but commenters called Volokh out for not being pure enough.

Needless to say, for anyone not committed to anarchism, this seems not
so much like blasphemy as simply insane.

>   1. Care for others, protecting them from harm.   2. Fairness, Justice, 
> treating others equally.
>   3. Loyalty to your group, family, nation.   4. Respect for tradition 
> and legitimate authority.   5. Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, 
> actions.
>
> Liberals (american sense) value care and fairness higher than the  
> others, while american conservatives value all five at the same time.

Plus, of course, fairness and treating others equally have multiple
definitions.

-xx- Damien X-)