[ExI] the law

[Henry Rivera]

This may provide jumping off points for people interested in reading more 

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory?wprov=sfti1 

Moral foundations theory is a social psychological theory intended to explain the origins of and variation in human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundations. It was first proposed by the psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph and Jesse Graham, building on the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder;and subsequently developed by a diverse group of collaborators, and popularized in Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. The theory proposes six foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression; while its authors remain open to the addition, subtraction or modification of the set of foundations.(pp104–107)
...
In contrast to the dominant theories of morality in psychology, the anthropologist Richard Shweder developed a set of theories emphasizing the cultural variability of moral judgments, but argued that different cultural forms of morality drew on "three distinct but coherent clusters of moral concerns", which he labeled as the ethics of autonomy, community, and divinity. Shweder's approach inspired Haidt to begin researching moral differences across cultures, including fieldwork in Brazil and Philadelphia. This work led Haidt to begin developing his social intuitionist approach to morality. This approach, which stood in sharp contrast to Kohlberg's rationalist work, suggested that "moral judgment is caused by quick moral intuitions" while moral reasoning simply serves as a post-hoc rationalization of already formed judgments. Haidt's work and his focus on quick, intuitive, emotional judgments quickly became very influential, attracting sustained attention from an array of researchers.

> On Aug 26, 2020, at 2:11 PM, John Clark via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 10:52 AM William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>> 
>> > The law is highly important and of course I didn't have to tell you that.  But morality calls upon higher laws at times
> 
> I agree. Somebody found out in 1945 where Ann Frank and her family were hiding and told the Gestapo about it, for him to do otherwise would have been illegal. So to call that man a criminal would not be entirely accurate, but to call him a monster certainly would be. Can this lead to contradictions between the law and morality? Yes, but then neither the law nor morality is entirely self consistent anyway. Nevertheless in most (but not all) cases it's usually pretty clear what the moral thing to do is, having the guts to actually do it is an entirely different matter.
> 
> John K Clark
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200826/68b787a0/attachment.htm>