« Department of Uh-Oh, a continuing series | Main | What do CEOs and other notables pay attention to? »
Around the web
1. Interview with Hitler's sculptor; his work is being shown again in Germany.
2. The state fair.
3. How conservatives differ from liberals, and why the former win elections.
4. New work on the Nazi economy.
5. Photos of the Mideast before WWII.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on August 8, 2006 at 04:28 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
The conservative-liberal paper strikes me as just an academic dressing up of tired old conservative talking oints. On what ethical basis is blind loyalty to one's group, or maintaining sexual "purity", or automatic deference to superiors, better than helping the disadvantaged and ameliorating injustices? To argue that all five are the basis for a sound system of morality, merely because most societies adopt them, seems to me to be the equivalent of arguing for the divine right of kings merely because that too was once the historical norm.
Ingroup loyalty and deference to superiors have led to war, bloodshed, and genocide throughout history. To contemplate them as the basis for morality is disgusting, indeed, immoral.
Posted by: tyronen at Aug 8, 2006 7:58:43 PM
I think you missed the part where the paper briefly explained why humans developed those emotions. For example, having loyalty to one's group and expecting it from your group members was very useful during our evolution. As a result, humans currently have it, for better or worse. The paper as far as I can tell isn't making a judgement on whether the fact that we have it is 'good' or 'bad'.
Ignoring that we (or at least a lot of us) do have that emotion is harmful when trying to conduct politics. That seems to be the point of the paper.
If you want to go about trying to stamp that out from human nature because you find it immoral, that's a different game altogether, and good luck with that.
Posted by: BillWallace at Aug 8, 2006 9:13:23 PM
Ingroup loyalty, deference to superiors, and sexual "purity" all contribute to survival of the "selfish gene". As such they can be considered the genetically caused “morality", so it is not surprising that it has strong political appeal. The idea that liberals don't understand it is wrong, it is that liberals don't like it, or at least don't consider it appropriate to use govermental power to enforce it.
Posted by: joan at Aug 8, 2006 9:14:11 PM
The paper's "explanations" of their moral catagories as products of evolutionary biology are completely unjustified poppycock. They are simply not falsifiable.
Nevertheless, the paper's observation of the existence of these moral catagories are valuable. Tyronen, the authors don't argue that their five pillars should form the basis of people's moral judgements. They simply argue that, emperically, they do form the basis of people's moral judgements. That your or I don't think they should doesn't make that observation immoral or incorrect.
Posted by: David Wright at Aug 8, 2006 10:44:02 PM
I think the paper misses the point altogether. Liberals and conservatives differ over what constitutes 'justice'. To put it simply, liberals think that it is unjust for people to have to live with the consequences of their own actions, while conservatives generally think that unequal outcomes may be just if they're the result of individual choices.
When I was reading the book Hungry Ghosts by Jasper Becker, in the chapter that discussed China forming communes, I was struck by the response of the people. People considered it deeply, fundamentally unfair that everyone got the same amount of food even if one person worked very hard while another did nothing. Liberals think that such people don't care about 'justice'. They overlook the fact that people react strongly to situations where outcomes are totally disconnected from effort precisely because they care about what they consider to be 'justice'.
Posted by: Ann at Aug 8, 2006 10:56:44 PM
It is incredible how modern-looking the buildings in Tel Aviv were.
Posted by: Yan Li at Aug 8, 2006 11:03:41 PM
"The idea that liberals don't understand it is wrong"
Well I think you're wrong. It's not a universal truth, but my experience teaches me that generally people who identify as strongly liberal often have trouble understanding why the people in question act the way that they do.
Posted by: BillWallace at Aug 8, 2006 11:25:52 PM
@Ann:
"while conservatives generally think that unequal outcomes may be just if they're the result of individual choices."
How do you put conservative views on gay marriage, narcotics and the war in Iraq
in all this? The idea that the left constitutes social justice and the right natural
rights is such a outdated cliche.
@Bill:
"but my experience teaches me that generally people who identify as strongly liberal often have trouble understanding why the people in question act the way that they do."
Exactly. Liberals will generally laugh at abstinance, even when being confronted
with irresponsible promiscuity on a grand scale eg single parent families and AIDS
among homosexuals. And conservatives - no matter how rational they are - will
generally have a ikky feeling when being confronted with two guys making out.
It's a unbridgeble gap.
Posted by: JSK at Aug 9, 2006 12:40:30 AM
Actually, I think liberals think that it is unjust for people to have to live with the consequences of OTHER's actions. That is, their level playing field looks much different than the conservatives'. Equal effort can result in different outcomes, depending on starting points and to a distressing degree (to the liberal), luck. And is that justice?
I think (some) conservatives only want a level playing field if it means they don't have to sacrifice anything in the name of fairness, or, worse, expand the competition they face.
And I think liberals get that people are self-interested. It's not a tough concept for anyone that's ever had siblings.
Posted by: tom at Aug 9, 2006 12:43:47 AM
I am with Joan.
Plus, it is time for libertarian's to stop stop bitching about liberal's use of the word "liberal". Sexual purity, love of your in-group, and blind respect for hierachies as pillars of morality? JS Mill would have a cow.
Posted by: joe o at Aug 9, 2006 1:19:41 AM
BillWallace- Liberals not only understand this “morality” but practice it. Most live in neighborhoods with people like themselves, follow their leaders, want there wives to be faithful, their daughters pure, and would be disappointed to find out their child is gay. This accounts for the much talked about liberal hypocrisy. They do, from time to time, feel guilty about their choices, and sometimes even allow their principles to effect their behavior, but mostly they just advocate abstract positions on public policy promoting their vision of a better world.
Posted by: joan at Aug 9, 2006 2:26:04 AM
@joan:
"Liberals not only understand this “morality” but practice it. Most live in neighborhoods with people like themselves, follow their leaders, want there wives to be faithful, their daughters pure, and would be disappointed to find out their child is gay."
Not many liberals I know.. but then again, I'm European. :P
Posted by: JSK at Aug 9, 2006 3:55:21 AM
Theres a lot of silly claims about what liberals believe. I think the primary differences between liberals and conservatives are A) How much they value equality (not fairness or justice) as a good, B) How much of there morality is dictated by religion, C) The threshold for military involvement. I think many people who are liberal underestimate the costs of achieving greater equality, the costs to efficiency and the costs to freedom. However, I think many conservatives underestimate the value of equality for its own sake.
B) Liberal people are much less religious on average and many conservatives public decisions are very informed by doctrinal theology. For every liberal who is disappointed that there child is gay there is an anti-abortion conservative that has an abortion or has there child have an abortion. (Just like your statement about liberals was made up mine is made up but since there are more abortions than gays I bet it is true). Liberalism and conservatism are both sufficiently abstract that they are not actually meant to be lived by.
C) The general trend is obvious of liberals being comparatively more pacifist (though in few cases actually pacifist) but much of military support or lack there of is just following the rumbles at the top of the pyramid. The right was strongly opposed to the actions in Kossovo for example.
Posted by: Michael F at Aug 9, 2006 9:12:57 AM
The Nazi paper is very interesting. I had a college classmate do an economic study of the Holocaust. He found the financial drain was tremendous and actually helped the Allies win the war.
Posted by: Ted Craig at Aug 9, 2006 9:37:50 AM
I liked the conservatives/liberals paper, but I thought the idea that there are only really two kinds of people in the world undermined the work a bit. For example:
a. Libertarians tend to be very focused on Harm and Reciprocity, and I think of Hayek's work as being largely about teaching us that we shouldn't casually toss aside working institutions. (But none of the big five properties in the paper quite tracks to conservatism about institutions--Hierarchy and Ingroup each capture some of it.)
b. Environmentalists are extremely concerned with Purity as a motive. It's different from the kind of Purity that opposes gay marriage, but it's definitely there.
c. Among more liberal (or at least Democratic) groups, blacks have a lot of Ingroup motive, which comes out as some seriously nasty things being said about black conservatives at times.
d. A major force in American liberalism seems to me to be the notion of focusing Harm and Reciprocity concerns on identifiable groups rather than on individuals. Thus you get conversations about Affirmative Action policies, in which both sides are talking about Harm and Reciprocity, but talking past each other because they can't agree on the level at which these moral principles should apply.
Posted by: albatross at Aug 9, 2006 9:59:52 AM
"will
generally have a ikky feeling when being confronted with two guys making out. "
Well I have no problem with gays, but I still get the ikky feeling. I'm perfectly happy for them to be gay, I just don't enjoy watching it. I think most hetero males who deny the ikky feeling are just trying to signal their open-mindedness.
re: joan
I agree that they are acting hypocratically, I just don't believe that the majority realize that's what they're doing.
Posted by: BillWallace at Aug 9, 2006 4:37:41 PM
Cross-posted from Tacitus
You all know the punchline already, of course, but I'd be interested to see the results anyway. Feel free to e-mail me the result at bkg207@stern.nyu.edu. I'll post a copy of the total results once I have them.
"When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following considerations relevant to your thinking?" (rank 1 to 6, 1=not relevant at all, 6=always relevant and extremely important)
1 - The benefits from the activity accrued unevenly to the participants
2 - Whether or not someone was harmed
3 - The activity involved makes you feel physically queasy
4 - Whether or not the people involved were of the same rank
5 - Whether or not someone did something disgusting
6 - The activity increased or decreased our unity
7 - Whether or not someone acted unfairly
8 - The person acting was cruel
9 - How close you were to the people affected
10 - The activity was frowned upon by authority
11 - The person acting was compassionate
12 - Whether or not someone betrayed his or her group
13 - Whether or not the actor was duty-bound
14 - The activity involved was base or vulgar
15 - Whether or not everybody involved got a fair share
16 - Please rank yourself on a scale of 1 to 7
(1=extremely "conservative", 7=extremely "liberal")
17- The Political Compass, which I suspect might provide interesting additional results.
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero at Aug 9, 2006 4:42:20 PM
My response to Tacitus's poll
1 - The benefits from the activity accrued unevenly to the participants
2
2 - Whether or not someone was harmed
6
3 - The activity involved makes you feel physically queasy
2
4 - Whether or not the people involved were of the same rank
1
5 - Whether or not someone did something disgusting
2
6 - The activity increased or decreased our unity
2
7 - Whether or not someone acted unfairly
4
8 - The person acting was cruel
5
9 - How close you were to the people affected
2
10 - The activity was frowned upon by authority
1
11 - The person acting was compassionate
3
12 - Whether or not someone betrayed his or her group
2
13 - Whether or not the actor was duty-bound
2
14 - The activity involved was base or vulgar
2
15 - Whether or not everybody involved got a fair share
3
16 - Please rank yourself on a scale of 1 to 7
7 (very liberal)
Political Compass says I'm 1 unit to the economic right and 5 units towards social libertarianism.
Posted by: michael vassar at Aug 10, 2006 1:13:36 AM
My response to Tacitus's poll
1 - The benefits from the activity accrued unevenly to the participants
2
2 - Whether or not someone was harmed
6
3 - The activity involved makes you feel physically queasy
2
4 - Whether or not the people involved were of the same rank
1
5 - Whether or not someone did something disgusting
2
6 - The activity increased or decreased our unity
2
7 - Whether or not someone acted unfairly
4
8 - The person acting was cruel
5
9 - How close you were to the people affected
2
10 - The activity was frowned upon by authority
1
11 - The person acting was compassionate
3
12 - Whether or not someone betrayed his or her group
2
13 - Whether or not the actor was duty-bound
2
14 - The activity involved was base or vulgar
2
15 - Whether or not everybody involved got a fair share
3
16 - Please rank yourself on a scale of 1 to 7
7 (very liberal)
Political Compass says I'm 1 unit to the economic right and 5 units towards social libertarianism.
Posted by: michael vassar at Aug 10, 2006 1:13:52 AM
My response to Tacitus's poll
1 - The benefits from the activity accrued unevenly to the participants
2
2 - Whether or not someone was harmed
6
3 - The activity involved makes you feel physically queasy
2
4 - Whether or not the people involved were of the same rank
1
5 - Whether or not someone did something disgusting
2
6 - The activity increased or decreased our unity
2
7 - Whether or not someone acted unfairly
4
8 - The person acting was cruel
5
9 - How close you were to the people affected
2
10 - The activity was frowned upon by authority
1
11 - The person acting was compassionate
3
12 - Whether or not someone betrayed his or her group
2
13 - Whether or not the actor was duty-bound
2
14 - The activity involved was base or vulgar
2
15 - Whether or not everybody involved got a fair share
3
16 - Please rank yourself on a scale of 1 to 7
7 (very liberal)
Political Compass says I'm 1 unit to the economic right and 5 units towards social libertarianism.
Posted by: michael vassar at Aug 10, 2006 1:13:58 AM
Thanks, Michael.
Posted by: Bernard Guerrero at Aug 10, 2006 12:14:11 PM
Sorry for the multiple post. If Tyler or Alex remove it I will feel less embarrassed.
Posted by: michael vassar at Aug 10, 2006 10:36:21 PM
mieters aziatisch ^^^ jong liefde in bad ^^^ lesbiche www ^^^ bonny lesbiche ^^^ indescreptible dildo ^^^ grotesque nympho leche le cul ^^^ vampire vingt ^^^ papa etrange ^^^ piacente amatoriali gruppo ^^^ perfetto infermiera strip ^^^ skoj asiatisk samlag ^^^ extravagant ung ejakulation ^^^ grazioso agente di polizia spogliarello ^^^ mousey asiatiche sex ^^^ meuf chaude omasex ^^^ moedig lesbisch beffen ^^^ pulska siitin siitin ^^^ hemaiseva miesmalli masturbating ^^^ fjollete fatter ^^^ student klipp ^^^ kjokken foto ^^^ varm merkelig kysk ^^^ efsyginitos magoula praxi ^^^ simantikos neos praxi ^^^ mere folle ^^^ froid papa photo ^^^ karaflos melahrini ^^^ karaflos avnanismos ^^^
Posted by: levan at Sep 12, 2006 3:18:05 AM
