Moral Foundations Theory

Serious discussions on politics, religion, and the like.

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby irilyth » Mon May 09, 2016 8:26 am

Tailsteak wrote:I identify with Spock, sacrificing himself, saying "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one".


If you like auto-tune, you may enjoy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vNBA8mHFf8 .
irilyth
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:15 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby trevel » Wed May 11, 2016 9:38 am

Nepene wrote:In order of my relative importances.

1. Authority.
2. Proportionality.
3. Liberty.
4. Loyalty.
5. Sancity.
6. Care.

For 1, lots of people know stuff better than me, following their lead is generally the best way to live a happy and safe life. Identifying who is good to follow and who is bad is important.


What I find interesting is, that's pretty much the opposite of how I would define "authority". You're CHOOSING who to follow, who to listen to. Yes, it's important to listen to people who know better than you, but Authority means Obeying the Authorities, not taking their advice into account.

"God says it, I believe it, that settles it" is a good statement of authoritarian 'virtue'. "It's important to consult with experts" is not, IMO.
trevel
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:45 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby Razmoudah » Thu May 12, 2016 11:58 am

Are you sure on that? Couldn't a good Aurhotive Value be "That guy knows more on this than I do, so I'll do as he says." instead?
Razmoudah
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:36 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby arthwollipot » Thu May 12, 2016 6:05 pm

This is the problem you have when you don't clearly define your terms at the beginning. And even when you do, people will chime in with different interpretations anyway.
arthwollipot
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:49 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby JustinReilly » Fri May 13, 2016 8:42 pm

Razmoudah wrote:And how many of those efforts were dedicated attempts at genocide? When the Romans were trying to eliminate the potential followers of Christ to stop this 'King of the World' that had been born. None of the other examples you gave were dedicated attempts at genocide. Christians, and the Roman Catholic church in particular, have engaged in wars of extermination, or dedicated attempts at genocide, several times, particularly during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, or haven't you heard of the Crusades? Not all of the Crusades were wars of extermination, but some were, as were the Witch Hunts and other anti-heretic measures they have taken. What sets a war of extermination apart is that even if you surrender they'll still most likely kill you, so you might as well fight.

The Romans were doing their level best to stamp out any trace of the Druidic religion in Gaul and Britannia centuries before Constantine. And have you read Caesar's invasion of Gaul? He tried about as hard as one could to exterminate them simply to get good press back home. As for the Christians, Pilate might've used the King of the World stuff as justification. We wouldn't know, Josephus was the only independent source on Jesus and there're strong signs that the Church tampered with his writings. The Romans cared about the Christians because they refused to give token obeisance to the deified emperors, they encouraged slaves and women to get uppity, and they were squicked out by the ritual pseudo-cannibalism. And the Mongols didn't try to exterminate anyone? Ask the Western Xin. Oh, wait, you can't. They were exterminated.
JustinReilly
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:12 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby Razmoudah » Fri May 13, 2016 9:14 pm

The Druidic's also refused to submit to the rule of the Romans. I'm not familiar with the Western Xin, but the other areas the Mongol's conquered were left in relative peace after they submitted to the Mongol's. Both groups only used full extermination against those who wouldn't submit to their rule and kept resisting them.
Razmoudah
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:36 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby JustinReilly » Fri May 13, 2016 10:55 pm

Razmoudah wrote:The Druidic's also refused to submit to the rule of the Romans. I'm not familiar with the Western Xin, but the other areas the Mongol's conquered were left in relative peace after they submitted to the Mongol's. Both groups only used full extermination against those who wouldn't submit to their rule and kept resisting them.

Nah, something seriously squicked them out about druidic practices. It wasn't just stamping out rebels, they went way out of their way to eradicate any trace of the druid cultus. It's one of the main reasons we know next to nothing about actual celtic religious practices. We have one Greek account where they sound like magical hippie tree worshipers, a whole bunch of Roman accounts where they try as hard as they can to make them out to be baby-eating monsters, and some myths and legends from Ireland written down long after the island was converted.

The Mongols used full extermination against those who wouldn't submit to their rule regardless of whether or not the kept resisting them. Which means a token resistance from a small leadership clique equals extermination for the whole population. Y'know, just to be sure.
JustinReilly
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:12 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby Razmoudah » Sat May 14, 2016 8:17 am

The Mongols didn't follow that policy everywhere, or else we might not even have China today. They had to fight almost a third of the way into China before the Chinese stopped using organized armed resistance, but there were still a few who attempted to fight well past half-way into the country.
Razmoudah
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:36 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby trevel » Sat May 14, 2016 11:51 am

Razmoudah wrote:Are you sure on that? Couldn't a good Aurhotive Value be "That guy knows more on this than I do, so I'll do as he says." instead?


Not if you want to use the term the way that every reference to it I've found uses it. It talks about the Social Order and hierarchies. Rank and status. Ovedience, submission, "legitimate authorities".

I actually had a problem with this in a different job. We had Team Leads appointed, and the bosses kept telling people to go to THEM with questions. Except people went to me and another person, because we actually had the answers. The boss was annoyed at this, because their authority was not being respected, because people weren't going to the people who DIDN'T have answers for answers. Eventually most people would go to the team lead, and then the team lead would ask us, and the boss was happy. That's what I view as Authority as a virtue -- people who do what they're told even when they know it's a bad idea. In both cases, people are consulting on what to do -- in one case they're consulting experts, in the other they're consulting Authority.

For myself:
1: Care
2: Fairness
3: Liberty
...
15: Loyalty
...
27: Sanctity
28: Authority

... because I actually see the last three moral foundations as largely evil. Racism and jingoism? That'd be the Loyalty value in action. Tyrants? Authority value. Blasphemy? Sanctity value.
trevel
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2011 9:45 am

Re: Moral Foundations Theory

Postby Razmoudah » Sun May 15, 2016 7:37 am

And that is again symptomatic of what is going wrong with American Society today, everything seems to be viewed as only having absolutist extremes as valid answers, with no middle ground being acknowledged, let alone considered.
Razmoudah
 
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:36 am

PreviousNext

Return to Serious Business

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron