4 ms·
First off, I doubt you would say that about anything you feel very strongly about, otherwise what is the point of holding that belief? To expand a little bit,
by 100k 17y ago
First off, I doubt you would say that about anything you feel very strongly about, otherwise what is the point of holding that belief?
To expand a little bit, Haidt argues that too much moral diversity leads to anomie, in which the condition in a society with no clear rules, standards or norms. This is the case of when there is "too much" individualism, and it is very difficult to achieve happiness without a coherent social structure.
"In an anomic society, people can do as they please; but without any clear standards of respected social institutions to enforce those standards, it is harder for people to find things they want to do. Anomie breeds feelings of rootlessness and anxiety and leads to an increase in amoral and antisocial behavior."
Though he is a liberal, one of his points in the book is that the relentless pursuit of individualism without regard to shared values leads to unsatisfying lives.
- blahedo 17y agoDude, please respond to what I said, not to what you think I must have meant. It is not incoherent to acknowledge that one's beliefs, even one's very strongly-held beliefs, might be wrong. Yes, I think that I'm right, I'm pretty darn sure I'm right, but what if I'm not? And I'd never find out unless I, at least sometimes, let people who disagree with me try to convince me they're right.
- 100k 17y agoSure, that makes sense. That's not what I'm saying about anomie though. Do you want to live in a world where your strongly held beliefs are dominant (not exclusive, but dominant) or in one where you are in the minority? Haidt is saying a person would not want to be in the minority. They may _believe_ in a minority moral opinion but their goal is for that moral opinion to become a majority opinion, not for it to languish forever.