The moral roots of liberals and conservatives - Jonathan Haidt

The problem i see in his theory is he thinks its libertarian vs conservative. Its actually libertarian vs authoritarian, conservative vs progressive. There is nothing inherent in libertarianism that conservatives couldn't have. Or vis versa.

The Times when Matrix was used in a realistic way

Mr Haidt is not unbiased/ he has an agenda. Any guests what his political beliefs are?

Haidt concludes by enjoining us to embrace Sent-ts'an's moral relativism: an uncommitted formalist vision of the alternatives as such. In effect to assume the meta-level of theoretical potentialities, or simply: the idealized impartiality of the philosopher. On the assumption that it is a realistic possibility for everyone. And without noticing that this effectively amounts to embracing an extra-moral position, for to look at a totality without committing to any particular dimension of it is not what morality in its socio-political exigence is about. Nor is it obvious that a socio-psychological angle on morality has any business offering respite from what ought to be an invitation to self-examination, if not a struggle against one’s own ‘self-evident’ truths, whether liberal or conservative.

Contemplating the possibilities AS SUCH follows a purely aesthetic (= perceptual) and totalizing imperative, directing attention away from the implicit obligation to choose. Such contemplation of possibilities doesn't amount to anything more than an indefinite 'time out' from the duty to judge (Hannah Arendt), providing relief from the moral challenges the go with the imperative to commit. This is no more a constructive step towards sorting out one's priorities than forgiveness is a substitute for retributive justice.

Passionate commitment to the truth - that men can be women? Ah 2008, what a time to be alive.

How has this weathered ten years on? I see the conservative right using in-group, authority, and purity to push a religio-fascist agenda that sacrifices the rights and liberty of more than a small minority. 😕

What a joke what morals not a single one of em is self efficient. You show me a self efficient man and you’ll see he makes no time for bs

Watching this in 2023 😂 conservatives sure proved you wrong. But white people will gaslight you and say they are perfect no matter what 😅 this guy trying to compare slavery to angry social discourse is hilarious. If “both sides” had an arrogant representative

This is a talk for white ethnocentrists tbh it lacks actual deep thought or objective viewpoints. Ted is known for the “he must be right bc white guy is taking” shtick anyways

His opening question doesnt make any sense. 'which guy voted for bush, which guy voted for Gore?' ...'It was Bill' This LITERALLY doesnt make sense.!!! Bill voted for whom? Which one?

Wrote a project on this topic, it was regarding anthropology studies and how political leaning effects reproductive success. rlly interesting

Fascinating

I'm a conservative and liberals are trouble...I'm open minded to a point..I DO NOT HAVE AN OPEN MIND TO LGBQ RSTUVWXYZ COMMUNITY..KEEP IT TO URSLF...The economy is horrible from dems and libs.

So do liberals lack purity, loyatly and respect for authority, or do conservatives have too much of it? Or is this a point of balance we must strive to reach in our societies?

I wish that there was some context given here. For instance, where was the talk given and what group was attending? I infer that his audience is American ("in a liberal college town", "60 miles north of Lynchberg Virginia") and wealthy ("You're all epicures" who could afford to choose a French restaurant and turn up their noses at Applebees). Perhaps even elitist?
He refers to other speakers and subjects which we know nothing about..
I also wish that there were questions and discussion included. Surely some of his audience would have questioned some of his assertions. I certainly do (as a Canadian liberal).

Trump2024

Wow. I never even dreamed liberals had morals.

Good. You are in. ❤ Bipartisan. RPA.

Poor guy, losing its time trying to explain.

Liberals are missing 4 out of 6 moral foundations, therefore they are immoral. Lacking the sanctity foundation, the sanctity of the objective truth, they lie cheat and steal whenever it is safe to do so.

I like the simplification of dividing all the people in two simple groups for scientific reasons, but as Chinese metaphysics says there are no pure Yin or Yang - there is always Yin in Yang, and vice versa. Not so many of open-minded people would like to sleep every night in a new unpredictable place, and not so many of conservatives would like to eat the same food every day. Such artificial simplification divide people more than they are divided on their own. First, you create these "boxes", then offer people to get in them, now you have two groups that think they are in opposition. Sad...

Interesting to see how the more democratically liberal a country becomes, the more conservatives change direction and actually begin to attack and dismantle institutions.

YES THE OLD TED IS BACK

This narrative is so silly and furthermore it’s just wrong. For example, I am multi lingual and more multi cultural than 99.99% of liberals, but since I am conservative I don’t think this fact makes me better or worse than anybody else.

In reality most of the time conservatives embrace conservatism merely due to a stubborn commitment to truth and sound reasoning above identity politics and above satisfying ephemeral desires for group or institutional validation. It’s no more complicated than that.

Mr. Haidt talks about “stepping out of the moral matrix” to attain “moral humility” but by suggesting that this is good, he is presupposing the very objective morality he is denying. By suggesting that moral humility is good and that “making the world a better place” is good and “fight wrongs” is good, he is presupposing the existence of an objective morality that in turn necessarily requires the existence of God Almighty. So he is presupposing conditions that require the very conservative morality that he so easily dismisses. This is logically self refuting. What an incoherent mess.

I think it's real impossible to say that you're value of Authority Ingroup
and Purity, and also value Fairness and Harm... also sciences
I think these values are at odds with each other: like...

Authority --vs-- Science
Loyalty --vs-- Fairness
Purity --vs-- Harm

This is why people who worship god are often at odds with science.
Loyalty is less concerned about fairness of out groups, AKA we got ours F*** Off!
And why people of "purity" don't care about harm they do to make something pure!

If you value one of these "morals" you can't in good faith say you value its counter part.

The interesting thing is during covid the lefties acted like righties and wanted strong govt control and to force people to do things to their bodies like wear masks or take medicines that may or may not have long term side effects. The left was also okay with vaccine passports too and closing things down...very rigid behaviors, anti-choice, and anti-openness. They were also very much for the authority of the establishment like Fauci rather than taking down the establishment and believing in alternative ideas. BTW I am neither left or right, I am a bit of a Libertarian and don't take kindly to much govt intervention at all (minimal govt)...I like the non aggression principle.

We know now liberals are MUCH more likely to end friendships based on groups, so the "ingroup" part is wrong.
This just shows how people WANT to be viewed, not how they are.

Ooooof. This didn’t age well…..

I am conservative, but love variety and always like to try something new.

Conservative here. MSM has deliberately alienated us.

Patronizing liberal; not an academic.

This was amazing.

People sleep on order. Yes it has its problems but it is what made us reach this stage in civilization

There is what I call a "balance". For example, being "accepting", "open", etc., for the sake of being "nice' and understanding of other, and promoting transgenderism, for example, is going too far in the "ignorance matrix"..

No. No one is passionate for change, no one is enthusiastic to make to world a better place. The entire human kind are just lazy cowards who are extremely self-centered and comfort seeking assholes. Nothing's going to change for the better and we're all going to die in pain; you'll see your kids die of hunger and thirst because you just had to feel happy and comfortable your entire life. What goes around comes around, mankind. We're all doomed.

Johnathan Haidt is a legend

A world without religion is still a world of rules of conduct. Peace isn't dependent on faith. It's dependent on cooperation... Peace to all!

Well folks a principle in FL has been fired for showing the statue of David so this is not theoretical anymore. We are seeing fascism rise in America.

The supposition that the Left is more open and tolerant than the Right may have been true 60 years ago, but it is patently not true now.
When was the last time conservatives shouted down a liberal speaker at a college?

Liberals in the US used to question authority. Then Biden got elected.

Liberals 2020: put your mask on. No choice, the state says so. (purity, harm, authority, ingroup identity).

I'll take the white pill.

It's funny that he thinks Bush and Gore were different politically.

Would the hypothesis still be the same if you took into consideration the political and economic structures that facilitate the behaviour? It seems to me quite obvious that in our inherently capitalist global system the left wants change and questions the authority. That is because the authority is ultimately enforcing a system that is quite right-wing by its nature. The capitalist system is also highly dependent on the oppression of the few. There is no sense in taking the middle ground when you are oppressed. The conservative right-wing on the other hand is very eager to speak of the middle ground and that is also only natural since they don't anything to lose.

It is quite interesting that in Finland we don't usually speak in terms of liberalism vs. conservatism and we might even regard the right as being more liberal and left more conservative. That might be because the wellfare country project that defined the system after the wars was quite leftist. Nowadays the right-wing is starting to be more conservative and left-wing more liberal again but also the politics are becoming gradually more neo-liberal capitalist. I bet that in the Soviet Union the right-wing minded people were the liberal ones and the ones feeling oppressed. Okay, maybe some of the left-wing minded as well...

So could it be that the one that is conservative and refuses change is doing so simply to protect their position and power? In that case I see the middle ground as being rather conservative and in our context rather inherently right-wing.

You can't think of any other animals that get into large numbers to survive, to fend off other groups? That's just sad....

The conservative who resists change is as valuable as the radical who proposes it - perhaps much more valuable as roots are more vital than grafts. It is good that new ideas should be heard, for the sake of the few ideas that can actually be used; but it is also good that new ideas should be compelled to go through the of mill objection, opposition, and contumely; this is the trial heat which innovations must survive before being allowed to enter the human race. It is good that the old should resist the young, and the young should prod the old; out of this tension, as out the strife of the sexes and the classes, comes a creative tensile strength, a stimulated development, a secret and basic unity and movement of the whole.