An internet oasis of open discussion without personal attacks
Alan Jones wrote:In his "The Righteous Mind", Jonathan Haidt says that westerners are righteous and partisan hypocrites. I equate this with saying that westerners are (they think like) schizotypal authoritarians. Haidt does not speak to the minority who enjoy questioning their assumptions (have let go of Truth) and who prefer tentative explanations to justifications.
Haidt and coworkers would systematize, would work out rationally, the moral sense. I found this on their website, moralfoundations.org: "We believe the Five Foundations are the best way to carve nature and culture at its joints when studying moral psychology."
Although I agree with humanistic psychologists that moral values can not be worked out rationally, I entertained the notion that tradional essentialist systematizing might help us understand moral values. In my reading about the Five Foundations I noted that survey results showed the care and fairness foundations to be held by everyone, but that the loyalty, authority, and sanctity foundations are held by a subset of those surveyed. How can this be? Perhaps it is because empathy is expressed with care and fairness, and that loyaly, authority, and sanctity are means of controlling such expressions.
Traditional authoritarian and essentialist distinctions of kind can be replaced with distinctions of degree and complexity. Metaphors of vertical distance and separateness can be replaced by metaphors of horizontal extent and inclusion. Jonathan Haidt's psychology and language that would carve nature and culture at its joints supports (or at least apologizes for) notions imposed by authoritarians and their institutions. I believe it should be replaced by a humanistic psychology and a language of most workable explanations.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest