Quote of the day
posted at 11:00 pm on September 17, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
“They found that people who identified themselves as liberals attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of individuals — those of not harming others and of doing as you would be done by. But liberals assigned much less importance to the three moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity.
Conservatives placed value on all five moral systems but they assigned less weight than liberals to the moralities protective of individuals…
Extreme liberals, Dr. Haidt argues, attach almost no importance to the moral systems that protect the group. Because conservatives do give some weight to individual protections, they often have a better understanding of liberal views than liberals do of conservative attitudes, in his view.
Dr. Haidt, who describes himself as a moderate liberal, says that societies need people with both types of personality. ‘A liberal morality will encourage much greater creativity but will weaken social structure and deplete social capital,’ he said. ‘I am really glad we have New York and San Francisco — most of our creativity comes out of cities like these. But a nation that was just New York and San Francisco could not survive very long…’”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Science says we’re more understanding now? But I thought they just proved we like to hit letter ‘W’ or something.
frankj on September 17, 2007 at 11:04 PM
I’ve actually had women tell me I’m lying when I say I am an artist and a conservative, as if the two concepts are mutually exclusive.However there was another study that showed conservatives are actually more adept at risk taking. All I know from personal ‘”anectdotal” evidence is that conservative babes are hotter.
bbz123 on September 17, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Sir Charles got in some Republican bashing on Monday Night Football……its sad we can’t even watch sports anymore without it being politicized.
jp on September 17, 2007 at 11:12 PM
If I understand the article right, it also says that liberals rely on the ideas of morality that are the most primitive while conservatives use more advanced and modern concepts of morality.
Anyway, I like the article because it confirms my prejudices.
frankj on September 17, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Interesting article. I love this counter-intuitive arguments though, such as the human brain is the most complicated thing we are even aware of in the universe and that brain learned disgust from eating meat. Okay.
Spirit of 1776 on September 17, 2007 at 11:14 PM
To practice five things under all circumstances constitutes perfect virtue; these five are gravity, generosity of soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness.
- Confucius
MB4 on September 17, 2007 at 11:14 PM
I wish every single person on the right side, or even the middle of the political spectrum would move out of San Francisco. My schadenfraude would be endless! Watching liberals turn the city into a complete dump would be awesome. Does that make me a bad person?
*Also Fleet Week coming to San Diego is a nice perk.
Theworldisnotenough on September 17, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Liberals do not care about the group only themselves? No!
Theworldisnotenough on September 17, 2007 at 11:27 PM
I just moved out of there in June. It’s a complete dump. And it’s getting worse. They’ve actually had several articles about how people are exodusing that city in droves. Because it’s expensive, crime ridden, and getting worse.
And no, that schadenfraude doesn’t make you a bad person. Because it’s happening.
mjk on September 17, 2007 at 11:28 PM
Gavin Newsom has tried to be the San Francisco Guiliani. Too bad he’s busy shutting Christian concerts down and trying to legalize gay marriage instead of fighting crime and doing something about the homeless. Which is where a lot of the crime comes from.
He doesn’t have to fortitude to take on such things so he’ll never be the next Guiliani.
mjk on September 17, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Sounds like San Francisco is turning into a mini USSR collapse.
Bad Candy on September 17, 2007 at 11:30 PM
I live in the suburbs of SF, and yes, I avoid going into the city, even in the last 5 years that I’ve been here I’ve seen a dramatic downslide.
bbz123 on September 17, 2007 at 11:35 PM
It’s a very simple equation greater morality means greater freedom.
I believe that a number of people who call themselves liberal are in fact moderate conservative who need a moral society to help guide them in the belief of a larger good American self image.
Speakup on September 17, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Finally. A story where conservatives can say to liberals “we are better than you”
lorien1973 on September 17, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Bawawawawawawawa!
Thanks for the sweet brain tonic after Monday’s pee article.
I had just poured me a nice glass of wine and was holding it up to my mouth when the words: “Cate Blanchette drinks her own pee” – and glass of yellow substance – was flashed to my eyes!
Jeepers creepers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AP, you are so evil!
I owe you one!! Watch your email inbox.
Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 11:49 PM
Yeah.
Jesus. Christ. On. Cross. In. Pee.
We will not survive without pee art and pee’d off actors.
Makes. Pee. Brain. Sense.
Mcguyver on September 17, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Fixed it for everyone!
TruthToBeTold on September 18, 2007 at 12:04 AM
Should have changed the but to and.
TruthToBeTold on September 18, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Fascinating.
I’ve always wondered why it really does seem that conservatives understand liberals pretty well – while liberals appear to have utterly no clue about the basic ideals of conservatism and why we believe them.
Then again … it might just be because I’d bet that a whole lot of people – like me – were once liberals and outgrew it as they got older and wiser. Of course I understand my own thinking 20 years ago.
In my experience, plenty of liberals grow into conservatives. Not so much the other way around. Easy to understand our own youthful foolishness.
It’s why I usually chuckle at liberals rather than hating them. Because I know damn well they’ll probably end up voting Republican by the time they’re 40.
And that’s just funny.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:06 AM
That’s not anecdotal. That’s proven fact. There have been studies. Extensive studies. Lots of studies.
Some of which I’ve conducted personally. Early findings concur with your hypothesis. The work continues.
Professor Blather on September 18, 2007 at 12:10 AM
Now that is a very worthy observation.
Spirit of 1776 on September 18, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Is there any correlation between being blonde and being a liberal?
TruthToBeTold on September 18, 2007 at 12:11 AM
How does this jibe with Hillary’s “It Takes a Village”? Was she just trying to convince herself?
BTW: I disagree that society needs leftists. Creativity would still be present, and it would be more uplifting, and more sensible at the same time. More humor would be intelligent, and less toilet-y. There would still be action movies, and they would make sense, be good, and not be gratuitous. &c., &c., &c.
BTBTW: What’s the actual difference between leftists and liberals? Are they one and the same, or is there a definitional distinction? I’d like at least a semi-scholarly, reasoned response. Thanks.
urbancenturion on September 18, 2007 at 12:29 AM
I guess that explains Ben Franklin, Thomas Alva Edison or Alexander Graham Bell.
Not to mention such liberals as Howard Hughes, Henry Ford or the Wright brothers.
And many others.
Somehow these great Americans under the heavy yolk of conservative values managed to break out and do/invent some pretty cool stuff.
Speakup on September 18, 2007 at 12:33 AM
It depends on the “group”. Liberals (including extreme ones) do attach importance to protecting groups they feel are oppressed by the majority. The problem is that liberals fight for these groups on individual liberties’ grounds – which ends up creating splinter groups that fight for their own liberties. There is no “big picture” approach to liberal attempts at resolving these issues (despite all their talk to the contrary). Taking a big picture approach would mean going along with majority rule, and that goes against everything they stand for. So they fight the majority at every turn – even if it means standing up for “minorities” that are oppressive themselves (like jihadis). Liberals see these “minorities” as misunderstood by the majority (for cultural reasons, etc.). In the end, liberals believe that “if only” the majority did more for these misunderstood minorities, there wouldn’t be any problems (more welfare programs, more religious freedoms for them [only], etc.)
Rick on September 18, 2007 at 12:56 AM
AP,
FYI, you may remember another article you linked from May 28, 2007, Washington Post, titled “If it feels good to be good, it might only be natural” (by S. Vedantam). Haidt is a colleague of Joshua Greene (featured in the Post article). Haidt like Greene takes inspiration from David Hume on how to think about morality and emotions.
jaychandra on September 18, 2007 at 1:28 AM
Having visited the YourMorals.org site and completed the surveys, I now understand America’s problem… degenerate conservatives!
What’s shocking is to see, as a group, self-identified conservatives largely indifferent on such diverse topics as abortion, the death penalty, fetal stem cell research, pornography, gay marriage, casual sex, homosexuality, flag burning and doctor-assisted suicide.
Are there any real men left?
T J Green on September 18, 2007 at 2:05 AM
I have been thinking about this, and while it can explain some liberal behavior there is other behavior that it doesn’t even come close to explaining.
Take the statement:
While this can explain why liberals would be against any war, how can you explain the liberals like of people like Stalin, Mao, Che, Saddam, any of the head choppers supporting Islam, etc… These people most defintly have or intend to do violence to huge numbers of people, quite often with the liberals as the first targets once the population is subdued. I think I have to revert back to my first hypothesis that, “Radical liberals are stupid.”
Buford on September 18, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Who cares what Dr. Haidt thinks.
Stick to what is important.
OJ should be the quote of the day.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/09/17/o-j-audio-uncensored/
slp on September 18, 2007 at 2:41 AM
Liberal “creativity” depends solely upon which level of shallowness and pretention one is willing to accept as “art”.
Halley on September 18, 2007 at 4:27 AM
Yes, liberals use nothing more than the Golden Rule and its contrapositive for their moral guidance. That has been obvious. It is further proof of the self-hate endemic to the liberal psyche – liberals build their entire ideology on the most basic moral teachings of Judeo-Christian culture but then go on a rampage against Judeo-Christian ethics as being backward and bigoted. The self-hate is clear, as it is with most positions of modern liberals.
Unfortunately, liberals also tend to be pretty stupid and they don’t seem to understand that empathy does not always yield an accurate picture of someone else’s actual feelings, and almost never works cross-culturally. But this is why liberals insist on dealing with everyone in the world as if they were a westerner – which has led to many of our problems and is currently opening us up to more risk than we should be carrying.
progressoverpeace on September 18, 2007 at 4:37 AM
I guess nobody here understands Classic Liberalism and Aristotelian Republicanism. A poll like this in it’s basest sense isn’t a surprise.
Nonfactor on September 18, 2007 at 5:35 AM
Moderation?
OJ should be the quote of the day.
The G rated versions of these quotes were on O’Reilly, Gibson, Brian Williams, CBS, CNN.
You can show the unexpurgated version here because everyone here ia an adult or very mature for their biological age and so everyone can see how foul his mouth is.
slp on September 18, 2007 at 6:08 AM
Based on my own empirical and unscientific observations over the last nearly half-century, I believe the difference between a leftist and a liberal is this;
While both hate and despise our society, and would like nothing better than to destroy it so they could “build anew” on the ruins (with themselves in charge), the typical leftist has no problem with getting his hands dirty. The bomb-throwers of SDS, the Weather Underground, Baader-Meihof, the Red Brigades, and the Renko Sekigun of the 1960s and ’70s were genuine leftists- they intended to remake the world according to the Gospel of Marx by any means necessary. I personally believe that they also enjoyed violence for its own sake, which puts them roughly on the intellectual level of a hyped-up street punk. (Or maybe the Hell’s Angels.)
Their modern descendants and disciples are on display every day, wherever International ANSWER and their ilk are protesting.
The typical liberal, by comparison, has an “image” to maintain. Not only do they want to keep their hands clean, but they also want the appearance of saintliness. (Sure sign that you’re dealing with a true liberal- count how many times they say that whatever they want to do is “for the children”.) As such, they will never, ever take “direct action” against those they genuinely hate, deep down inside.
To them, it’s much more satisfying to attain a position of power and influence, and then use the full weight of government to punish those they deem less “enlightened” than themselves. And when the inevitable blowback occurs, they can always blame someone else. (Ranging from incompetent subordinates to those never-to-be-sufficiently-damned non-”progressives”, who are always sabotaging them.)
In short, like Ed Asner as the chief heavy in “El Dorado” (1967), as The Duke said to him from the back of his horse,
Fortunately for liberals, there are always leftists around to do their dirty work. So they can maintain their self-defined aura of saintliness, and perfection.
cheers
eon
eon on September 18, 2007 at 7:19 AM
Years ago ,whila attending school in Madison, I went on a mission in the library to study theories of creativity, one common denominator was that humor is an essential facet , the ability to take two things that have not been combined before and fashion something new out of them.I think this relates to the lack of true mirth in the liberal community.
bbz123 on September 18, 2007 at 7:28 AM
Kind of reminds me of this quote I found last week.
terryannonline on September 18, 2007 at 8:19 AM
just found this…
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3114412735990235786&q=politics&hl=en
trailortrash on September 18, 2007 at 8:39 AM
idk i hold do no harm and do unto others as pretty much my basic moral compass…does that make me liberal/scum of the earth?
ernesto on September 18, 2007 at 8:55 AM
I just assumed everyone understood that modern American liberalism no longer resembles Classical Liberalism in any meaningful way.
aengus on September 18, 2007 at 9:00 AM
Some of this is not at all consistent with my experience.
So you’d think they’d tend to be more courteous and well-spoken and polite, right? That hasn’t been my experience, nor that of anyone who compares, say, the comments here and at HuffPo.
Well…I’m not so sure about those three, I think they just have their own definitions of them. Look at Hamsher’s recent eviscerating of Ms Edwards for speaking a heartfelt but politically inconvenient opinion. That’s only the latest example of leftists acting as vigorous policeman of an enforced Marxist-type loyalty and purity in their community. I’ve seen it often in groups of liberals, too, usually expressed in a sugar-over-steel “of course, no one at THIS table would ever vote for those nasty Republicans” sort of tone. As for “respect for authority,” how many will blaspheme against Noam Chomsky or Al Gore?
Splunge on September 18, 2007 at 9:20 AM
I liked this part…
That’s right, art to promote a cause, or make a silly statement, it doesn’t have to be appealing to look at or take any talent to create, I understand completely now why I didn’t do well in art school!
4shoes on September 18, 2007 at 9:23 AM
When I was 17, I was a rabid Jimmy Carter fan, and even had a huge campaign ad poster on my wall. Four years later and I had wised up, having had two of the greatest teachers one could ask for: Jimmy on behalf of the left illustrated the vapidity and weakness of liberalism, and Reagan exhibited the moral clarity and powerful vision of freedom that is conservative thought. I learned the lesson, but was suprised when certain friends and family members did not. They just didn’t get it, and maybe this survey shows why!
gajaw999 on September 18, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Stalin and Mao and the others, were not liberals. They were leftists. A liberal seeks to liberate man from some idea of persecution or slavery. A leftist seeks to subjugate man for socialist causes.
So a leftist is concerned about the group. At its core, leftism is socialism. Socialist view is that the society takes precedence over the individual. We see this with socialized health care, taxes, big government, etc.. That is leftism, not liberalism.
Liberalism today is often expressed as libertarianism. Small government, low taxes, no socialized health care, or anything of the sort. However, a libertarian also does not impose any duty on the individual to do anything for a society. A true libertarian opposes all government, and is suspicious of all government. A libertarian traditionally opposes foreign wars and drafts, for example. A conservative would not. Another example would be legalization of drugs which would normally be favored by libertarians, but not conservatives. Another example would be laws concerning sex for consenting adults. A libertarians says No Way, a conservative says Way. The Waco wackos were an ultimate example of libertarians. Libertarians do not see themselves as part of any greater group, so clearly not conservatives. A libertarian and a conservative are far apart on the political spectrum. This is also the source for many arguments on Hotair.
A conservative may or may not believe in small government, but he believes in a collective cause of a society. Unlike a leftist, however, a conservative eschews socialist ideas in favor of capitalist ideals. Take conservatism further, as I do, and you enter into fascism.
Which brings up a question. What is the difference between Hitler and Stalin? Were they both fascists since they both ran police states with themselves as supreme ruler? Stalin ran a police state, but one with communist principles. Hitler ran a police state but one with capitalist principles. Both capitalist and communist principles deal not only with economics but with social structure. So while they both were dictators, they both were not conservative. Stalin had no interest in social morals or any respect for class structure. Christianity was driven underground. The Nazis, however, did believe in establishing their own moral code of behavior, including that which oversaw the art world. Some art was deemed degenerate art, a classification so needed today, yet surprisingly, it was still on display. Christianity was maintained. Class structure was also maintained. So they were social conservative authoritarians whereas the communists were simply classless, atheist authoritarians.
Anarchists are a unique bunch, diametrically opposed to fascists, they eschew the notion of a collective good. In most ways, very similar to libertarians in their view of religion and personal freedom, but unlike libertarians, they despise class structure, personal wealth, or personal hygiene.
Someone mentioned classic liberalism. Classic liberalism is no longer a valid political category since western society is already based on classic liberal ideals. Liberals today fall into one of two categories: Either they are leftists, or they are libertarians. But those two are not diametrically opposed just as Ron Paul is not directly opposite the Truthers. They are closer than you think.
What I did not mention were statists, since they have no real political leanings, other than a belief in big government.
For a better view of the political spectrum, and where you may stand, and it may surprise you, Neil Boortz (a libertarian, not a conservative) has this convenient quiz that places you on the political spectrum.
jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Sorry, wrong link. But a very funny video.
This is the Neil Boortz link
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-score/quiz.php
jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 10:59 AM
eon, thanks; that was helpful: liberals wield the pens and leftists wield the swords
urbancenturion on September 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM
Try this link.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 11:01 AM
jihadwatcher,
If communists don’t regard morality, then why are the Chinese so uptight about it? I must beg to differ. They don’t care about it in truth, but they certainly use it in two ways: to keep people in line, and to maintain some semblance of (pseudo?)intellectual credibility in the intellectual arena.
But this could also be argue about the fascists. You don’t really think Hitler really cared about Christianity, do you?
urbancenturion on September 18, 2007 at 11:08 AM
You’re missing the point, centurian. The Nazis kept religion as part of society, the communists didn’t. Remember, this is about politics.
jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 11:10 AM
cute, fun; but grossly oversimplistic
btw, the commies in Russia still had the Russian orthodox church; and you missed my point that the Chinese may not have what we would call a formal religion, but the effect is the same in that they attempt to maintain a moral framework for their society. Whether it is Confucian in nature, or legal, or whatever, and whatever is the purpose, they do embrace some sense of morality. Prostitution is not legal, narcotics are verbotten, homosexuality is frowned upon, etc. These are moral issues, whether they come from the Judeo-Christian ethos, or from Chinese tradition.
urbancenturion on September 18, 2007 at 11:19 AM
Ask Diedrich Boenhoffer.
PRCalDude on September 18, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Anyway, I like the article because it confirms my prejudices.
This comment shows that the writer understands that his prejudices are: 1) Prejudices 2) His own 3) Not the only ones 4) Not necessarily the right ones
This to me is subtle confirmation of the hypothesis of the article.
Now ask yourself, how often have you heard a lib say something like that? Here’s how a lib says the same thing:
Anyway, I like the article because it speaks the truth.
drunyan8315 on September 18, 2007 at 1:15 PM
Not if this poll has anything to say about it.
Sorry, buddy, Classical Liberalism does still apply and you’re not going to get away with such a blatant either or fallacy.
Nonfactor on September 18, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Again, I think you are confusing things. We are not talking about nations, we are talking about political theories. In communism, religion has no role, it is disavowed by the state, driven underground. Of course, you may find exceptions in any case, no government is pure to its political theory, but you must understand the fundamental differences between a fascist dictatorship and a communist dictatorship as they apply to conservative values. Conservative values are not instrinsic in communist dictatorships. Don’t get hung up and what the Russians may have done or not done. Look only at the theory.
jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 1:57 PM
click
jihadwatcher on September 18, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Comment pages: