Jonathan Haidt: "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion"
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 10. 2013
- October 22, 2013 - 7 PM -- L.V. Eberhard Center, Grand Valley State Unviersity
The Hauenstein Center is proud to partner with the GVSU's Business Ethics Center for this event.
---
Why can't our political leaders work together as threats loom and problems mount? Why do people so readily assume the worst about the motives of their fellow citizens? In The Righteous Mind, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt explores the origins of our divisions and points the way forward to mutual understanding.
His starting point is moral intuition-the nearly instantaneous perceptions we all have about other people and the things they do. These intuitions feel like self-evident truths, making us righteously certain that those who see things differently are wrong. Haidt shows us how these intuitions differ across cultures, including the cultures of the political left and right. He blends his own research findings with those of anthropologists, historians, and other psychologists to draw a map of the moral domain, and he explains why conservatives can navigate that map more skillfully than can liberals. He then examines the origins of morality, overturning the view that evolution made us fundamentally selfish creatures. But rather than arguing that we are innately altruistic, he makes a more subtle claim-that we are fundamentally groupish. It is our groupishness, he explains, that leads to our greatest joys, our religious divisions, and our political affiliations. In a stunning final chapter on ideology and civility, Haidt shows what each side is right about, and why we need the insights of liberals, conservatives, and libertarians to flourish as a nation.
---
Jonathan Haidt joined New York University Stern School of Business in July 2011. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, based in the Business and Society Program Area.
Professor Haidt is a social psychologist whose research examines the intuitive foundations of morality. His most recent book is the New York Times bestseller The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. In that book Haidt offers an account of the origins of the human moral sense, and he shows how variations in moral intuitions can help explain the American culture war between left and right. At Stern he is applying his research on moral psychology to rethink the way business ethics is studied and is integrated into the curriculum. His goal is to draw on the best behavioral science research to create organizations that function as ethical systems, with only minimal need for directly training people to behave ethically -- "something nobody has yet found a way to do."
Before coming to Stern, Professor Haidt taught for 16 years at the University of Virginia, where he was given three awards for outstanding teaching, including the Virginia Outstanding Faculty Award, conferred by Governor Mark Warner. His first book was The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom. His writings appear frequently in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
Professor Haidt received a B.A. in philosophy from Yale University, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania.
Talk begins at 9:25.
thank you kind sir, you saved minutes of my life.
Thank you so much
Thank you.
ascendence thank god
Thank you
Would sure love a 2022 update of this Dr. Haidt
He came out on lex fridman about 2 months ago, as well as other lesser known podcasts.
I wish all admins and moderatorsof open "political" forums on fb would watch this in its entirety. Invaluable.
I'm a liberal, but the world (self included) is hungry for the kind of conservatives shown here at the Hauenstein Center. Similarly, on the left, we need to hear more Pinker, Haidt & Harris and less tired post-modernist nonsense.
So fun to listen to this in 2023 😂
thank you for the the long winded intro, we all love that
Jonathan Haidt is awesome
I love academics like Haidt and Pinker because they demonstrate just how powerful social science can be when it’s synthesised with evolutionary science - particularly evolutionary psychology. They are also both great presenters - they sound a bit like each too! Does anyone know of any other academics like them who have videos of their presentations available?
Jordan Peterson (naturally) and Stephen Hicks
They also demonstrate how really out of touch they are with the reality of the thngs they only talk about.
They demonstrate it with every word they say.
@@judowrestlerka
How so?
Could you explain/elaborate your statement?
What did they say that was out of touch?
I'm genuinely interested in your answer.
@@judowrestlerka hows that? you need to explain something to be effective.
@@5dodot5 his argument probably is that they contradict what he thinks is true
58:26 Discussion of "what to do" to build civility
1:14:00 Q&A with audience members
"Happiness is relative"
This was also covered in a great book "The Progress Paradox" by Greg Easterbrook
Points: 1) it is going great in terms of economy and reducing poverty after the industrialisation. 2) extreme polarization in politics in the people of america and the politicians. 3) the universal psychological foundation of morality, David Hume and morality is determined by emotional intuitions and reasons are after rationalizations of emotional intuitions, which binds and blinds.
Wonderful speech.
lecture actually begins at 9:22
Would love to see all the graphs updated for 2018
2020
@@Texas75023 2021
Extremely insightful.Learning that the American political divide was shaped by religion until as recently as the 60's was a revelation to me. As one of the worlds most religious developed countries, could it be possible that, with America being a relatively new country, that the moral matrix (as Haidt puts it) provided by the state of governance hasn't been in existence for long enough for the society it serves to relinquish it's trust in religion and allow the transition from a religious to a secular state? As a European from a secular country, I find Americas political system and it's religious devotion fascinatingly peculiar, and an interesting contrast to our often stale and uninteresting (though not entirely dissimilar) systems.
What I take away from Haidt at 01:12:53 is that it's much easier to depart from religion as a framework for retaining social capital if you have a homogeneous society like in Northern Europe. It's a different story in a diverse society as in the US.
Thanks for a great video!
I hope Dr Haidt monitors comments here.
I have NEVER been smitten so hard as I was when he questioned (in The Righteous Mind) which was more important for survival.
Man, Id like to see these grafts now, 9yrs later.
The graph at 18:00 shows GDP, not GDP per capita.
In theory at least the progressive income tax strives to "punish" everyone equally, not punish the rich for their success. The idea is that a tax dollar taken from a billionaire punishes him less than a tax dollar taken from a poor person. To equalize the pain, the government takes proportionately more from the rich. A flat tax would spread the pain unequally.
Mark Caplan socialism is jealousy.
Clearly you don’t understand how a flat tax works. A flat tax rate means that the rich still pay a larger absolute amount of money... but everyone pays the same fraction of their income. So a flat tax is how you punish everyone equally, as long as you maybe have some exemption at the bottom for people who really have none to spare.
A progressive income tax punishes the rich disproportionately. It’s not about the effect of a given dollar, it’s about the proportional amount of money lost.
I wish I knew he came to gvsu while i was there. Though I don't think i knew him by then
This is a top ten lecture of all times.
Why do intros always have to be so long and boring?
white people
No kidding. It was quite a good talk by Jonathan Haidt, especially towards the end.
blacks latino's etc all bang on..its academia
Hi everyone. Could anybody please help me on how can I translate into Spanish the terms "hivishness" and "awe" in the context Dr. Haidt spoke of them?
Actually Plato was on the right track as far as his analogy with the chariot and the two horses, because the more ancient view is that of the Vedas (knowledge) wich Bhagavad-gita is the essence of it. In BG Lord Krsna explain to Arjuna that the chariot represent the material body, The charioter is the intelligence. The rein represent the mind and the five senses--the sight, the smell, the taste, the touch and the hearing, ---are represented by the five horses. The passenger is the soul. If the intelligence (reason, philosophy, knowledge, etc...) is not strong then it cannot guide well the five senses and the passenger will not have a good ride that can take him, successfully, to destination.
wait-did plato read the bhagavad gita?
the more people talk the more libertarian I become.
If this is always the case, make sure you are not in a confirmation bias loop. If this might be the case (and normally is to some extent), try to pick up some arguments from those who oppose libertarianism.
The one thing about Jonathan height that bugs me is he always asks the audience to raise their hand if they're conservative or liberal or if they hold certain positions, he should know by now that people are going to be hesitant to admit those sort of things in a group where they'll be judged
jeb bush did a great job on the intro
Benjamin Zuckermann low energy
All the problems we have today, especially in America, can be linked back to the Puritans, the type of people they were and how they treated those that joined them.
As the Overton Window has moved left, moderate positions are perceived as extreme, but it is the left that is extreme.
1:13:12 truth boom
Why isn’t Canada on that list?
"People don't know the reason for their beliefs, because they have never been challenged"... That statement sums up so much of what is wrong in this world. The only two (2) things that divide us as human beings are language and belief. And BOTH of them were TAUGHT to us (most of the time, without question) by others...so exactly, who, is "them"?
You have to please your peers not your parents? When did that change ? when the war generation started to lose their influence as they started to die off?
That caught my attention, too. It seems to me that peer pressure is very strong, yet there’s no bond like a close parental, especially father, influence on a child. I’m thinking that with father absence being at astronomical levels across the board since 1960’s, that peer pressure is a much larger percentage of influence than ever before in the USA.
I'm quite sure many more people (in absolute numbers) live in dire poverty in 2015 than in ancient times or the Middle Ages. Maybe today it's only 20-30% of total world population, but that is 20-30% of 7 billion people.
1:11:05 Did he actually mean 50,000 years ago?
Yes, I think so. Verbal equivalent of a "typo."
When I first read Haidt, I was a fan. Now, with several years to think about it behind me, I can barely listen at points. His main flaw is in creating a rubric and proceeding to create just-so stories to fit it. Did the Republican Party change (they are supposed to be conservative, after all) and become "far right", or did the Democrats leave tradition so far behind and begin to change basic definitions (e.g., "marriage") and abandon traditional norms? This is a giant flaw.
He seems to have the theory of evolution as the informative base for his understanding of the internal motivations of humans. If the theory is not true then what. I can say that the reason why Christian conservatives are motivated in these issues is probably explained differently from a biblical perspective.
As interesting as this is...he fights from within the box. Individuals are not bound by conceptual boxes...and these conceptual boxes includes the concepts of countries and parties...and evidence of the manufacturing of morals to contain people within these concepts is being ignored for convenience. "concepts are metaphors which do not correspond to reality." truths "A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms-in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."
Moral foundation Theory:
Care/Harm
Fairness/cheating
Liberty/oppression
Loyalty/betrayal
Authority/subversion
Sanctity/degradation
By organisation and activity, there's not a lot of difference between politics and religion as intentional adoption of beliefs in the absence of sustainable evidence of efficacy that could easily be attributed to Magical Thinking, that relies on probabilistic success, until it doesn't succeed, and someone else is to blame for the apparent lack of faith. Sciencing these circumstances is categorization and proportioning of wave-particle cause-effect, WYSIWYG Actuality, more a "Wait and See" reluctance to perturb innate default balance, before adopting another Theoretical POV.., policy. Social Orientation and momentum, confuse and dissipate reasonable and rational objectives. (What are you gunna do? An individual against the mob..)
Although I like Haidt, he is partially blinded by his own politics. If one looks at the politicians of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, most if not all of the Democrats of those times could not get elected as Democrats today due to their policies. On the other hand, all of the Republicans probably could, except maybe Nixon. The reason for this is that as the left says, the right doesn't like change and the left does. If you take Kennedy for example, his low tax, pro business, America first ideas would not work for today's Democrats. This is because his policies are mainstream Republican. It's the left that has drifted towards socialism and communism. They like change and that direction is the only way they can go. Since they have drifted so far left, from their prospective, Republicans look extreme.
States a nuclear exchange with 1000 warheads "cannot happen" anymore. Why can't it happen?
+torahislife Can't, from a mathematical perspective, is inaccurate, but I could agree that the probability would be so small as to be statistically similar to impossible , simply because it isn't in anyone's interest for it to happen, and those sufficiently developed nations with the capability to implement this action will be well aware of the consequences of any perceived gain.Of course, it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a nuclear bomb could be dropped on a major city by a misguided individual, organisation or country. But with todays collaborative technology, and the unity between the developed nations, how do you think that would play out for the instigators? The events of recent historic wars holds a clue. Any nuclear retaliation, because of their indiscriminate nature and depending on the quantity used, would inevitably result in anything between the loss of innocent life and a global development of animosity both within and towards the retaliating nation, to global annihilation due to the environmental impact. It's extremely unlikely any organisation or country, irrespective of the extremity of their nature, would either desire or be unaware of this consequence.Simply put then, there are more effective means to deal with such a situation, and the leaders and their constituents are aware of this....we hope.
+torahislife My apologies for the lack of paragraphs in my response, CZcams appears to refuse my request for them.
VICNCRAIG While your arguments make alot of sense from a MADD perspective, our world has changed. Today's delivery vehicles are more compact, mobile, and fire-ready than the Cold War. SLBM/ SLCM and satellite detonation of EMP virtually eliminate reaction time. Russia and US both maintain a survivable nuclear doctrine with Russia more active in civil defense. The nuclear winter scare scenarios have gone the way of the 1980s..
Escalation and false alarms have nearly erupted in nuclear exchanges in the past. These risks remain today. Throw in a few Islamic nations with nukes and we have a new catalyst in the mix. Never say never.
+torahislife I absolutely agree that from a technical perspective it's possible, and has been for a long time. Some of the mobile nuclear weapons (Trident for example) have the potential to be incredibly effective in their devastation. It's the motivating factors behind the action that now lead many to conclude that its a statistical impossibility, because there is so little, if anything, to be gained economically or politically from attacking another country to begin with.I also agree that threats still exist, and will continue to for some time to come, with the existence of totalitarian systems and religious extremism. But as you rightly point out, our world has changed, and the political and economic foundations that these threats are built upon have been proven less effective than democracy and capitalism. When control is finally relinquished from the last few that cling to it to enable this more effective system to flourish globally, and the social and economic benefits it brings such as education, security and prosperity are realised throughout, the threat of mankind destroying itself will be obsolete. Until that day, lets just hope nobody with any power or influence in the world does anything moronic.
VICNCRAIG I hope you're correct. As you rightly point out, until that day we hope. We can and should do more than just hope - we must do everything possible to prevent apocalyptic ideologies that promote "martyrdom" and death of unbelievers over peaceful prosperity. We can begin with Islam.
Rape and murder rates in the U.S. have declined because the criminal justice system got tougher. And it got tougher because the public demanded stricter mandatory sentencing laws to keep the bad guys in prison longer.
It’s a bitch to start questioning one’s society.
As a conservative, there are aspects of liberalism that I agree with. I think most normal people are balanced, and not divided into extreme left and right. The only thing I’m against is leftism or Marxism. Can we not find level headed moderates to run our governments?
Agreed. Haidt explains why extremist politicians have taken over in his youtube talks on political polarization.
What is the beef with Marxism? Have you read Marx?
I always wondered why america is so obsessed with socialism.
You are on the other extreme end of the spectrum.
It always seem like a way to avoid finding a way to better society.
So for example Bernie Sanders would be concidered in the central left.
You never had a left wing presidential candidate.
And yet there is so much fear. While you have a strong far right movement.
When you are conservative. So Central right, you lacked a proper choice the last elections.
The republicans should cleanse themselfes of the Extremists or real fair conservatives will getting a hughe wake Up call
I am utterly afraid of so called christians who voted for a rapist.
You were and still are our nearest friend. But now there is the rising feeling that we can't trust the American leadership anymore. But WE need your leadership.
So the world will crumble down.
24:41 Why is trust for Obama among Republicans THAT low? How do you explain that?
The "Common Ground Initiative" sounds great in theory but there is a vicious ideology that holds civil society and the free choices that people make in contempt. This totalitarian ideology also has contempt for local and state govt., prefers judicial fiat, and thinks that its job is to indoctrinate, coerce and force people that don't think like them into "right thinking." It is an ideology (really a religion) that can not tolerate dissent.
I feel like Haidt's desire for less polarization is tied to a kind of relativism - since he (thinks he) understands the moral motives that people have and the contingent reasons which cause them, everyone is understandable and no one is right from a particular level of abstraction.
From the fact that people come to moral views for contingent reasons, you cannot conclude that no one is objectively right. Rather than less polarization, I would rather see more personal restraint and less care about purity in dealing with people who want to justify all sorts of awful things. (I encounter lots of people who think that conversing seriously with defenders of atrocities seriously threaten their own moral status - this is how I mean purity). I think this is the Millian position and the (classical) liberal position correctly applied.
The conversation (on CZcams) between William Buckley and Noam Chomsky may be a good example of this. In the discussion, they talk about how Chomsky sees Buckley's position as truly evil, but is able to exercise enough restraint and sacrifice his moral purity to have an enlightening discussion. I'd rather people develop this attitude.
aka free speech mixed with a little british politeness
It’s called civility. And you start from the beginning assuming the other person may know something you don’t.
I think what Haidt explicitly says rather than no one is right, is that most people have some level of truth in what they believe or think.
I wonder how the critique presented by people like Chomsky (and other anarchists) of US politics fits into this idea that the two significant parties in America are increasingly polarized. The critique being that, while republicans and democrats differ on SOME key issues, they nevertheless BOTH work to perpetuate the status quo of a violent neoliberal oligarchy, and in many significant ways are virtually indistinguishable from each other.
+Marl Karx I agree that he focuses a bit too much on the party divide. However, Chomsky still just belongs to another virtue signalling group characterized by strong aversion toward what they see as Western imperialism. Thus he is biased in just the same way as everyone else.
Marl Karx I would say that fighting hierarchy is impossible,as we are hard wired for at least some of it,read the blank slate
When I was merely diabetic I thought it was my right to choose any size drink I wanted. Now that I'm on dialysis I want you to pay for it. Discuss.
16:30
Why can't 1,000 nukes go off?
Something Sea1 because survivorship bias
Genocide was happening while he was giving this speech.
I was perplexed that he said the right values group loyalty more. My sense is that the collectivism of the left correlates more with group loyalty, and that the right is more independent-minded, given the individualism that defines them more. Maybe he misspoke?
How are conservatives more individual loving? They "conserve" things.
Folks oughta vote in every election!
Prefer that informed folks vote otherwise it is just a coin flip
the magnetic field goes the wrong way round!
..or is this just the liberal way;-)
it hurts my soul when i hear someone say Scandinavians are atheists. deep deep in my soul
You create your own hell
Brenna's vocal fry is annoying.
Some of Haidt's _facts_ appear to be inconsistent with a subsequent 2016 PEW study, which can be found under the title _A Wider Ideological Gap Between More and Less Educated Adults_ .
Really hate it when conservatism = religious.
It the shoe fits...
Why? It is Fox News.
At 1:12:00 he goes off into the liberal weeds. He fails to recognize previous atheistic regimes and the horrific results, and doesn't have the migrant crisis yet to inform his opinion of Sweden. Hopefully he has reconsidered this position since. Atheistic societies are highly religious if you grant that their god is the state, the God that Failed.
Democrats are extreme also.
i thought it was implied, but yes
This guy is crazy
Listening in Sept. 2020. Interesting talk. Oversimplification into either-or categories that are not orthogonal diminish the value for actually creating solutions to perceived problems.
The choice of terminology is also revealing 43:24 The Left builds it's morality on the "care" foundation, which earlier, JH admitted he sides with Passion over Reason. 43:45 "But on the Left, people are very *uncomfortable* with this ... " That is a very generous way to describe rebellion against authority, with its trend toward lawlessness in general.
Ultimately, the Universe does not care. It simply exists. And only rational comprehension of reality enables "successful" manipulation of reality, such as providing the foundational element of Maslow's pymarid. Fluff is nice, but only when survival is not an issue.
Edit: *SHOCK!* 45:30 I'm a conservative, and I have a world-view that includes ALL 6 FOUNDATION concepts. Liberalism is half-assed, using only 3. NO WONDER every liberal attempt at solutions fails in the real-world.
15:17 “when poverty plummets [...] violence goes down”. I like you Jonathan but this is false. Violence is linked to inequality and not poverty. Equally poor societies have less poverty than richer societies with high levels of inequality. And this is what we are seeing now in the West, a rise in violence due to a massive rise in inequality.
There is no massive rise in inequality there is a massive rise in media promoting inequality so more people can envision themselves as a victim. When you take responsibility for your actions that is when you become more equal. Every time you blame someone else you are taking your own power away.
@Ismael Barrera there are countries with more inequality and with less, it's not a binary. Look up a Gini coeficient map and see if you can spot a broad correlation between high inequality and violence.
If people could propel themselves into the future or into the past, they could see the other side better. For example, the TeaParty slogan, "stop supporting people who refuse to work" go back 250 years in the South and you might find poor people of color who would have liked to stop supporting wealthy white planters. Get it? Same sign. Same sentiment. Same characters. Opposite juxtaposition.
Likewise, propel oneself into a future predictable in human terms... if wealth was distributed from TeaParty Conservatives (or MAGAs] after 100 years, would their offspring be willing to forego claim to what had been taken from them?
They would not let that go.
Ergo: some of the "moral tastebud" difference results from who is "up" and who is "down"...
Authoritarians versus humanists.
WWwwwwwooooooooowwwww
I think I get it... whoever gave women the vote is to blame for pretty much everything, yeah ?
I enjoy Haidt's research but find a lot to be desired with his interpretations of it. I am not sure what matters in regards to morality beyond basic fairness. When he gets to talking about things like purity and sanctity, these are personal preferences. This has no more to do with morality than the flavor of ice cream that you prefer. He is much too kind towards the political right when he interprets the his data.
He states that fairness is not the only value upon which morality is based.
There are the concepts that righteous leaders should be obeyed because those leaders are in the right, loyalty to one's family and tribe is morally right, as you are obliged to them, purity has nothing to do with "personal preference", but keeping yourself morally and spiritually clean, et cetera.
Your claim that they are personal preferences is a self-refuting argument. I can argue that your claim that those moral values are "personal preferences" is itself, "Your own personal preference".
I suppose you count eating mud or animal dung like ice cream are merely "personal preferences" rather than things you unconsciously believe are not right to do.
And, ironically, you prove his point that leftists are tone deaf on four of the six moral values (they being care, fairness, authority, loyalty, purity, and freedom [with leftists only having a tuning for the first two]).
GreyWolfLeaderTW leftists aren't "tone deaf" on this. They are just right.
No Way
*Laughs
No, they are tone deaf. They are not right. *YOU* are not right. You are very wrong, and Haidt just demonstrated it through the slides and the graphs that leftists are indeed stuck on only two flavors of moral values.
GreyWolfLeaderTW You just make baseless assertions.
*"There are the concepts that righteous leaders should be obeyed"*
This is very telling and shows that at core you just an authoritarian. You are looking for someone to command you and take away your personal moral responsibility.
*"purity has nothing to do with personal preference, but keeping yourself morally and spiritually clean"*
Here again I have to assume that you mean dictated morality. There is no such thing as "spiritually" clean. We do not have a spirit, and nothing of a spirit world has ever been evidenced.
I don't have anything against you claiming that I am only arguing my personal preferences regarding morality, so is everyone else. What I _would_ argue though is that striving for fair and equitable treatment for everyone is the best way to build a safe and well functioning society. No one ever argues that their own groups should be discriminated against. No one wants their children to have less opportunity than others. This is evidence that I am right.
*"I suppose you count eating mud or animal dung like ice cream are merely "personal preferences" rather than things you unconsciously believe are not right to do"*
Feel free to eat shit. I won't stop you. I see many on the right consuming massive amounts of horse shit, and seemingly liking it. I know that it's harmful, but I really can't say anything considering it's their life. It would be foolishly inconsistent of me to feel differently about Fox News than I feel about a drug like heroin. People should be allowed to do what they choose, even if it hurts them.
*"And, ironically, you prove his point that leftists are tone deaf on four of the six moral values"*
You seemingly miss the point of my comment. I disagree with Dr. Haidt on what we should consider moral. As I stated I see much of this as personal preference, and believe quite possibly Dr. Haidt would too if his funding did not come from a right wing group. Anything beyond fairness I don't think is _moral._
No Way
Oh your hypocrisy is *soooo* rich!
You made the baseless assertion when you said, and I quote:
"leftists aren't "tone deaf" on this. They are just right."
Since when is following a leader *in righteousness* authoritarian, pray tell? Part of the concept of following in righteousness is that if a leader begins to become tyrannical or abuse his powers, he forfeits his authority and is to be removed.
You're also strawmanning. Having a leader does not absolve an individual of their moral autonomy or responsibilities. Very telling that you seem to think of those who respect righteous leaders as sheep. Says a lot more about you than them.
_Here again I have to assume that you mean dictated morality. There is no such thing as "spiritually" clean._
Based on your hypocritical "baseless assertion"?
Yeah, going to have to call your bluff on that one.
You have, by definition, no evidence that the spirit doesn't exist, because of the scientific principle that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
There is plenty of evidence, by comparison, of the spiritual. We know energy and matter that are unseen (like Dark Matter and Dark Energy) exist.
You undercut your own argument. Something called "self-refutation". If you are making subjective claims regarding morality, why should anyone take you seriously and not ignore you?
If the rest of the world were okay with murdering you, why should we listen to your subjective moral arguments counters to that if they are only your subjective opinion?
On your word alone. You beg why such things as "fair", "equitable", "safe", and "well-functioning" should be considered moral values to strive for when you make appeals to subjectivism.
I'm the one asking *YOU* if you want to eat pig feces if you seriously think morality is strictly a matter of personal taste.
That's not what those on the right do. It certainly is what those on the left do.
Bad argument. If everyone took something that hurt them, then everyone would be hurt, and such a society certainly is not moral.
No I didn't. I pointed out that your point of view proved *his* point.
And as I stated before, you make a self-refuting argument when you appeal to subjectivism.
I'm afraid your argument is a genetic fallacy. Doesn't matter where his funding comes from. The dude, in case you don't know, used to be hard leftist, and came to these conclusions before receiving any financial support from the political right.
And your claim that only "fairness is moral" is undercut by your claim that morals are a personal opinion. That means that your "fairness is moral" opinion likewise is only your own personal opinion which I don't have to acknowledge.
You are not moral, you have no moral authority, and your destroyed any authority you had on the issue when you appealed to subjectivity.
"everything is going great....see! ok so now you see how great everything is going, here's why everything is going so badly...." lmao, most confused public intellectual ever... everything he says has no formal coherence...I blame Hume
Unfortunately in 21-st century, we now are afraid of nuclear war again...:((( and it's because of the country which inherited Soviet Union dictatorship
More like it is because of the unnecessary NATO expansion which has been consistently and aggressively taking place despite the _SU_ dissolution. And some other illicit American activities on the international scene setting _these_ precedents. Prof Mearsheimer's lectures on this topic are invaluable.
Sadly haidt buy into the peer oriented western norm ( Gordon Neufeld: Kids Need Us More Than Friends ) and that he don't understand epigenes in a Biopsyckosocial view ( Dr. Gabor Maté: Consequences of Stressed Parenting ) ( Development and Epigenetics - A Conversation with Darcia Narvaez )
"World poverty is ending."
Really, because out here in the real world I am seeing a growing poor population.
Come out of the ivory tower of academic fantasy.
You’re right- poverty still is a problem, and in some areas it’s getting worse. In the context of the point being discussed though, you seem to be using the same ‘logic’ climate change deniers like to use to try to rebut global warming: “Global warming is fake because it’s cold outside”. Ridiculous right? Haidt never said world poverty HAS ended, he said it’s getting better on the global scale.
So the real question here is- did you know that all along? Were you just being a contrarian for the sake of it, or did you really lose the forest for the trees?
He acts as if the statistical decreases in sinful things really matters. He acts as if things were worse for his generation. These graphs create a false reality for him that things are so much better now.
Yet, I don't see things as being better, sin still exists.
Until the Lord returns, there is nothing to celebrate over, as far as I am concerned. Looks can be deceiving. This man's excitement over such a superficial means, since all it took was a graph, created by someone, with data that appears to show how much better things are for him to show others that it is proof positive things are better.
Things aren't better than they were. Sure the world could make it appear as if all sin/crime has ended. Until the Lord returns, none of that really matters.
Men are wicked in their hearts. Convincing people of false narratives is a deceptive game that they use for nefarious reasons.
You should ask why does he wants me to believe things are better today, when it doesn't really matter whether statistics support that idea or not?
Welfare is not just for “ people who make mistakes”. I like your ideas, and enjoy listening to your talks, but you do seem a little naive about the dangers of capitalism. Maybe because you are a long wAy from the bottom of this new global order.
Capitalism is dangerous, but not as dangerous as any other system. Being free to own things and do what you want with them, excepting harm other people and their stuff, is the best way to organize a society. The only alternatives to capitalism are varying levels of central control, and that leads to waste and corruption.
Completely bogus thesis based on cherry picked data and false logic.
Joe Smith you provide no data to support your argument. That makes your argument baseless and you provide zero logic
S Ehlers I wasn't making an argument, I was stating my opinion. Apparently you don't know the difference.
Joe Smith Hey asshole you didn't state it was your opinion in your original post and people do have the right to disagree with your opinion if you posted it on CZcams.
This is so dated and inaccurate in 2024
stop the genocide,allow abortion.