I think these surveys say more about how people want to see themselves in the questions.   Liberal people, for example, are inclined to want to think they are independent and resistant to authority - except when it comes to global warming, smoking, food, gay marriage, etc. and then they want legislation and enforcement.     Conservative people want to regard themselves as caring, unless it comes to terrorists.

Conservatives are at least pretty consistent - the liberal survery respondents seem to be all over the map, which means they were filling out the answers they way they think they are supposed to for their self image, and reading questions in that light.   It is unlikely that liberals think purity is unimportant when it comes to water or GMO foods, for example, but if they think the question is about sex, they give it the unimportant mark.   Likewise, they don't want to harm anything as long as it is a defenseless animal but a 6-month old fetus is fair game.  


I'm lower than everyone else on two - harm and fairness (so where does that put me?   I believe in fairness regardless of life experience, so I think someone besides a latina woman can be a good Supreme Court judge, but I believe in excellence more than fairness) while 'harm' is a word that has too many subjective meanings.   I would never shoot a dog, for example, but I get why out of control births leads animal shelters to kill them - and match conservatives on one.   Otherwise I am dead in the middle.  Which sounds like me.

This was known as far back as 1882:

That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative!

Private Willis's song, from Iolanthe, by W.S.Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan

Alas, it seems that the MPs of that day were as supine before their party leaders as our present-day ones:

When in that House M.P.'s divide,
If they’ve a brain and cerebellum, too,
They’ve got to leave that brain outside,
And vote just as their leaders tell 'em to.

In my view, there is no such thing as a "good" government,

Gerhard, that reminded me of an answer Noam Chomsky made to a question after he addressed the National Press Club in Australia a few years back. Asked "What form of government can be trusted?" he replied "Governments are not there to be trusted, they're there to be challenged." 

A very good question Gerhard, in fact, so good that I will devote much thought and care to my reply! See you shortly.

I can see your point, but to counter .....

In the first case, you may grudgingly comply, but in fact you comply because you realize that it's a reasonable choice.  It is still your choice, and you aren't letting anyone make a decision on your behalf.  In effect, you've chosen to be cooperative.  However, assuming that you weren't .... to what extent does the other party have a right to force you?

In the second case, that sounds like coercion, so it really steps outside the concept of someone have a "right" to make the decision. 

I guess my perspective hinges on the fact that cooperation must be voluntary for it to mean anything.  Therefore, I'm not sacrificing my right to make decisions, but rather (in the sense of cooperating) I'm willing to consider and comply with others that may have better information or make a good case.  The difficulty I always have with this argument is in determining where the boundaries are and how they can be identified.  When does it stop being cooperative and simply becomes coercion.

That's true, but if you follow the logical train of thought you invariably have to come to the conclusion that, for good or ill, you'd rather reserve the right to make all the decisions on your own life.

This also leads to the point that the only "rational" position to take is that the absence of government is the only thing that makes sense.  However, you also immediately recognize that that wouldn't work, because it would immediately open you up from invasion by outside forces that could take advantage of your lack of unity, not to mention the fragmentation of the society into smaller segments, etc.

Overall, we find that we're stuck.  That's why it has been my position to say that ALL laws are bad and serve no purpose except to deprive me of a freedom that I would possess otherwise.  I also don't expect to be successful in such a position, but at least I feel like they'll have to fight for every law they do make. :))

That's true, but bear in mind that if society were to fragment, invasion doesn't necessarily require a foreign nation.  In addition, there are plenty of other resources that would invite such an action;  farmland, free labor, lumber, minerals, etc.  Virtually anything might fit the bill.

Assuming you can control the variable of population growth and it's attendant pressures to expand.

Nailed it :))

It's sweet that you guys missed me so much.
I presume this must be the case based on the nature of this peice and the discussions after it.
Michael, Steve, Gerhard, Patrick, Hank, always a pleasure. Robert, we haven't engaged as of yet, I'm sure we will.

Michael, your peice is perfect. It's a still frame from my Conservatism is Unnatural essay. (Where I discuss the same subject.) I'll elaborate soon enough...

Gerhard says,
"I'm willing to consider and comply with others that may have better information or make a good case..."
In answer to his very excellent question, "Under what circumstances do you think someone else should have a greater right to make a decision affecting your life than yourself?"

Steve answers with what I'll paraphrase as astute philosophical arguments that could be summed as, "Complicated question. It requires tighter definitions of what is right, good and true, etc..." (Sorry if that seems flippant.)

But at this stage in the argument, before it veers from the moral to the purely polical it seems to me that you are searching for eudaimonea. But unlike Aristotle, you are attempting to define a "standard" of flourishment beyond that rather wanting definition he gives in the Nichomachean Ethics. This is exactly what I'm working on. (Long pause for gasps of amazement followed by titters of ridicule.) The point is, someone or some "thing" has to determine both expertise and trust, if we are to trust your expertise.

If I, for instance, do not possess the faculty to truly understand the science of the big bang and I can do nothing to experience it, how is it any different than the idea of God? Why is it that I believe the Scientists but not the Preachers? What if, for me, it's the other way around?

The dangers of ethical work are precarious. You must tread lightly and chase every rabbit down every hole. I'm finding there are some answers (for instance there are no naturally occuring social norms, or that conservatism goes against nature,) but for the most part you come back with things you wouldn't repeat to the ghosts of  Nero. (I would also argue against the current belief that Morality is a natural phenomenon.)

Someday soon I hope to bring it up here, so you can all argue with me, which would be very fun indeed!
But for now, because it's incomplete and I am afeared,  a little background...

The survey used as the measurement of your politics is in fact the "Definition of Domain of Morality" by Elliot Turiel 1998. It is described as "a prescriptive judgment of justice, rights and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other." It is borne of olde intuitionism, David Hume, 1739, "We speak not strictly and philosophically when we talk of the combat of passion and of reason. Reason is and ought to be, the slave of the passions - to serve and obey them." It later gained popularity through the twentieth century by the work of people like Lawrence Kohlberg who favoured a rationalistic approach to the development of morality, namely that we did it ourselves, throughout our lives.

The following is lifted from: http://www.scientificblogging.com/assignee039s_prerogative/blog/conservatism_unnatural

In fact, we use this standard of:
Fairness/Justice
Harm/Care
 Ingroup/Loyalty 
Authority/Respect
Purity/Sanctity as the measuring stick of our sociological or moral makeup. The stronger the assignation of importance to the beginning of the list, the more left leaning, liberal, democratic, etc. you are.

The more importance you assign to the latter three the more right leaning, conservative, authoritative, etc. you are. I’m sure we can agree that the utilisation of judgement where Fairness and Harm are the standards we use is much more logical and productive that using the considerations of Ingroup, Authority or Purity. In fact, the latter three paradigms should be almost entirely dismissed, they are, for the most part, antiquated and spent.

    Ingroup leads to nepotism, racism, classism. How many of us have helped a friend do something illogical? Authority is weighed well by many still. Despite murderous cops, self-serving politicians, and abusive priests... Purity doesn’t refer to the wholeness or correctness of something, but it’s deemed worth. The Dome of the Rock is one of the most traveled to places on the planet. It is a manmade structure where people come to pay homage to a rock. Were they able to, the pilgrims could pick up any rock and assign the same purity to it. They can’t because they’ve been instructed that this rock is special and deservedly so. (In fairness, this last point is why I say we should all but dismiss Ingroup, Authority and Purity considerations, for what if I am wrong and someday an irrefutable force proves to me that the rock is special. Furthermore, Ingroup facilitates family responsibility and cultural comfort which are not unhealthy. There is also Authority in the Universe as there is Purity, I just haven’t found either yet. I know they exist because their opposites are so prevalent.)

The problem with the measurement is honesty and realism.

I think we stand in the way of ourselves until our motives become reasonable.

Best Thoughts,
Brian.

Is it the laziness or cowardice that keeps us in the minority? I think yes...
Is it our minority that keeps the fan filthy? I think yes...
Is there something that can be done about it? I'm sure trying...

Perhaps ULTIMATELY there is no authority.  But you must assign respect and that is a form of authority.
N'est Pas? Let us not forget the root of the word. (Patrick, comments on Authority from Author?)

I went and took the survey. (I'm too thumbed to get it up here...) But let's just say that the questions were poorly planned. This does not surprise me coming from Jonathan Haidt, author of "the Happiness Hypothesis." Who, every time I've heard him open his mouth, pisses me off. If anyone's work deserves to be dismissed on the grounds of being unscientific it is his.  Unfortunately for him, the questions posed do not make for an fair assessment of one's morality, even restricted to politics.  I don't believe there are a list of questions that could properly prove one's morality, they can only point to it. There are only means, no ends.

An example to illustrate my tired point:
Hank Said,
" It is unlikely that liberals think purity is unimportant when it comes to
water or GMO foods, for example, but if they think the question is
about sex, they give it the unimportant mark.  "
He is exactly right and wrong, just like everybody else. Hank is right because the definitions are not given prior to the bias questions. They may as well make up the survey results. He is wrong in his interpretation of Purity. (Not his fault, just to illustrate.) The purity "heading" in the domain of morality has nothing to do with wholeness or correctness, it has only to do with Sanctity, such as my "dome of the rock" example in my earlier post. This is but one of the terms in the ill-defined survey. ( I knew this and scored 0 on purity, does it mean anything? Do you want it to? After completing my logic studies my IQ went up, but of course it didn't, I just got better at taking the test. OR - No way man, my IQ went up.)

Further to this, Haidt seems hell bent on making his observations fit his conclusions, be damned any arguments. His borrowing of the Domain of Morality to persue happiness is valid. His methodology is not.  He is coming from the biological camp. The social psychologists. It is my opinion that looking at the individual motivation without looking at the totality of the societal effect is useless. There are also the philosophical concerns of "value. " And as Haidt seems to hate philosophy, he is useless, at least in this task. (Sorry Jonathan, you're still less of a jerk and more of a scientist that Sam Harris.)

Owen Flanagan, Prof of Phil, Duke, "There is a problem in the way we think about the good life."
Anthony Grayling, Atheist Phil, (self described,) "Individual talents are the reason that ideologies lead to unhappiness."
Mr. Haidt would do well to sit down with these two gentlemen for a long winded debate.
Or at least read some Bertrand Russell.
Always a pleasure,
Best Thoughts,
Brian