[ExI] the law

[William Flynn Wallace]

There is no conflict between Haidt and Kohlberg.  One, Haidt, is a set of
categories into which similar beliefs fall.  Kohlberg is a developmental
stage theory wherein increasingly sophisticated moral reasoning is used by
people from infancy onward. Most people do not achieve the last two
stages.  bill w

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 1:20 PM Henry Rivera via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> This may provide jumping off points for people interested in reading more
>
> From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory?wprov=sfti1
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory?wprov=sfti1>
>
> Moral foundations theory is a social psychological
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Social_psychological>
>  theory intended to explain the origins of and variation in human moral
> reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundations.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Haidt2004-1> It
> was first proposed by the psychologists
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Graham2013-2>Jonathan
> Haidt
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Jonathan_Haidt>,
> Craig Joseph and Jesse Graham, building on the work of cultural
> anthropologist Richard Shweder
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Richard_Shweder>;and
> subsequently developed by a diverse group of collaborators, and popularized
> in Haidt's book
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Shweder1997-3>The
> Righteous Mind
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/The_Righteous_Mind>
> . The theory proposes six foundations: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating,
> Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and
> Liberty/Oppression;
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Haidt-4>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Iyer2012-5> while
> its authors remain open to the addition, subtraction or modification of the
> set of foundations.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Haidt-4>
> (pp104–107)
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Graham2013-2>
> ...
> 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.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Shweder1997-3> Shweder's
> approach inspired Haidt to begin researching moral differences across
> cultures, including fieldwork in Brazil and Philadelphia.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-11> This
> work led Haidt to begin developing his
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Haidt1993-12>social
> intuitionist
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Social_intuitionism> 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.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Haidt2001-9> Haidt's
> work and his focus on quick, intuitive, emotional judgments quickly became
> very influential, attracting sustained attention from an array of
> researchers.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/mobile-html/Moral_foundations_theory#cite_note-Haidt2001-9>
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20200826/58f07d0b/attachment.htm>