3 ms·

People most definitely DO NOT have similar values, and this almost entirely explains the left/right divide within the United States. Most Americans have been br

People most definitely DO NOT have similar values, and this almost entirely explains the left/right divide within the United States. Most Americans have been brought up to believe in shared beliefs like individual liberty, equality before the law, basic human rights, etc. This is the common vision we are striving to achieve. But beliefs are not the same as values. The divide comes in how we prioritize our values in achieving those goals. Jonathan Haidt has done a lot of important work in this area, I recommend you check him out. Our moral foundations are based on: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Lefties really only care about the first two, conservatives care about all 5, and harm/care + fairness/reciprocity typically rank lower than the other values. Look at the FIRST comment on this thread. Then look at the list of values. It is really easy to see what our arguments are about once you know why people think the way they do. I disagree strongly with your last point. Almost everyone wants to be happy, avoid suffering, have healthy and harmonious relationships, to live life as they choose, have a sense of purpose, etc. Our fights are typically about how to achieve that for every citizen. If you can find a LARGE population of people that does not want those things I will happily retract my statement.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Most Americans have been brought up to believe in shared beliefs like individual liberty, equality before the law, basic human rights, etc. This is less true when you get beyond platitudes to what each one of those means in substance. There is a very significant disagreement over what “liberty”, for instance, means, and over what things are “basic human rights”, among people who agree that “liberty” and “basic human rights” are important goals. > But beliefs are not the same as values. Well, beliefs include both fact and value beliefs, but the ones you enumerate are, in fact, values. > The divide comes in how we prioritize our values in achieving those goals. Values are root goals, not means of achieving goals. > I disagree strongly with your last point. Almost everyone wants to be happy, avoid suffering, have healthy and harmonious relationships, to live life as they choose, have a sense of purpose, etc. Taking that as true, for the sake of argument, that's not wanting the same things, even if people might use the same words. It is a different thing for Alice to be happy, avoid suffering, have harmonious relationships, live as she chooses, and have a sense of purpose than it is for Bob to have those things; it may even—depending on, e.g., what makes Alice and Bob each happy—be mutually incompatible things.
- JoHawth31 8y ago
  You are conflating real world policy execution with values. Substance can't be mapped onto reality without prioritizing values and deciding accordingly. The belief of individual liberty is shared throughout America, its real world execution will vary depending on the value system of the population in question. We have the same belief, but disagree about how to get there. I think you're sort of on the right track about values being root goals. Values come first, then we execute policy based on those values. One goal may come at the expense of another. And some lefties might not even recognize a trade off if statistically they don't value something that conservatives value very highly. Or vice versa. Your last point is in alignment with everything I've said before. We have the same over arching goal (happiness), we just disagree about how to get there. The two paths to the goal are mutually incompatible, not the goal itself. The path is what is in question and conflict, not the goal. This is why it is so important that the path is discussed honestly and openly. Good intentions do not automatically lead to good outcomes, and if we as a society choose the wrong path we are f*. So to bring it full circle, this is EXACTLY why we need more conservatives on campus: to discuss the other paths and evaluate them objectively so that the best path may win.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > You are conflating real world policy execution with values. No, I'm not. > Substance can't be mapped onto reality without prioritizing values and deciding accordingly. That is a syntactically-valid sentence but I have no clear idea what it is trying to communicate relevant to the discussion. > The belief of individual liberty is shared throughout America The idea that there is a thing called “individual liberty” that is to be valued is broadly shared. What that label actually means is not a product of such a broad consensus. This isn't a matter of “how to achieve individual liberty” being a matter of disagreement (that is true, too, but a different issue) but the fact of what it means to say “individual liberty” being a matter of disagreement, with mutually incompatible views as to what that means. > Your last point is in alignment with everything I've said before No, it's directly opposed to it. > We have the same over arching goal (happiness), we just disagree about how to get there. No, that's what you said. What I said is that Alice has the goal “Alice should be happy” and Bob has the goal “Bob should be happy”, and these are not the same goal, and may (depending on what actually concretely produces happiness for Alice and Bob, respectively) may be mutually incompatible goals. And when you scale up to hundreds of millions of people with goals of that style, absolutely are, in very many cases, mutually incompatible goals. This is not at all a matter of dispute about ideal path to a shared goal, because the goal is not shared. The language Alice and Bob use to describe the goal might be shared (each might say “I want happiness”), but the actual goal is different, it's just the differences are elided in the casual description.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Most Americans have been brought up to believe in shared beliefs like individual liberty, equality before the law, basic human rights, etc. This is less true when you get beyond platitudes to what each one of those means in substance. There is a very significant disagreement over what “liberty”, for instance, means, and over what things are “basic human rights”, among people who agree that “liberty” and “basic human rights” are important goals. > But beliefs are not the same as values. Well, beliefs include both fact and value beliefs, but the ones you enumerate are, in fact, values. > The divide comes in how we prioritize our values in achieving those goals. Values are root goals, not means of achieving goals. > I disagree strongly with your last point. Almost everyone wants to be happy, avoid suffering, have healthy and harmonious relationships, to live life as they choose, have a sense of purpose, etc. Taking that as true, for the sake of argument, that's not wanting the same things, even if people might use the same words. It is a different thing for Alice to be happy, avoid suffering, have harmonious relationships, live as she chooses, and have a sense of purpose than it is for Bob to have those things; it may even—depending on, e.g., what makes Alice and Bob each happy—be mutually incompatible things.

JoHawth31 8y ago
You are conflating real world policy execution with values. Substance can't be mapped onto reality without prioritizing values and deciding accordingly. The belief of individual liberty is shared throughout America, its real world execution will vary depending on the value system of the population in question. We have the same belief, but disagree about how to get there. I think you're sort of on the right track about values being root goals. Values come first, then we execute policy based on those values. One goal may come at the expense of another. And some lefties might not even recognize a trade off if statistically they don't value something that conservatives value very highly. Or vice versa. Your last point is in alignment with everything I've said before. We have the same over arching goal (happiness), we just disagree about how to get there. The two paths to the goal are mutually incompatible, not the goal itself. The path is what is in question and conflict, not the goal. This is why it is so important that the path is discussed honestly and openly. Good intentions do not automatically lead to good outcomes, and if we as a society choose the wrong path we are f*. So to bring it full circle, this is EXACTLY why we need more conservatives on campus: to discuss the other paths and evaluate them objectively so that the best path may win.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > You are conflating real world policy execution with values. No, I'm not. > Substance can't be mapped onto reality without prioritizing values and deciding accordingly. That is a syntactically-valid sentence but I have no clear idea what it is trying to communicate relevant to the discussion. > The belief of individual liberty is shared throughout America The idea that there is a thing called “individual liberty” that is to be valued is broadly shared. What that label actually means is not a product of such a broad consensus. This isn't a matter of “how to achieve individual liberty” being a matter of disagreement (that is true, too, but a different issue) but the fact of what it means to say “individual liberty” being a matter of disagreement, with mutually incompatible views as to what that means. > Your last point is in alignment with everything I've said before No, it's directly opposed to it. > We have the same over arching goal (happiness), we just disagree about how to get there. No, that's what you said. What I said is that Alice has the goal “Alice should be happy” and Bob has the goal “Bob should be happy”, and these are not the same goal, and may (depending on what actually concretely produces happiness for Alice and Bob, respectively) may be mutually incompatible goals. And when you scale up to hundreds of millions of people with goals of that style, absolutely are, in very many cases, mutually incompatible goals. This is not at all a matter of dispute about ideal path to a shared goal, because the goal is not shared. The language Alice and Bob use to describe the goal might be shared (each might say “I want happiness”), but the actual goal is different, it's just the differences are elided in the casual description.