3 ms·

>These include two “individualizing” foundations—care and equality—that focus on protecting individuals from harm and promoting fairness. The other four—proport

>These include two “individualizing” foundations—care and equality—that focus on protecting individuals from harm and promoting fairness. The other four—proportionality, loyalty, authority, and purity—are called “binding” foundations because they support social cohesion, hierarchy, and shared values. These six categories from this article reminded me of another article I saw recently. "The Elephant in America’s Room: How Moral Psychology Explains Our Political Civil War" > Haidt identified several distinct “moral foundations” that operate like taste receptors for moral concerns: Care/harm: Sensitivity to suffering and the need to protect the vulnerable Fairness/cheating: Concerns about equality, proportionality, and reciprocity Loyalty/betrayal: Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group Authority/subversion: Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition Sanctity/degradation: Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual Liberty/oppression: Resistance to domination and restriction of freedom https://medium.com/@_X_/the-elephant-in-americas-room-how-moral-psychology-explains-our-political-civil-war-e97824d07036 https://medium.com/@_X_/the-elephant-in-americas-room-how-mo...

kgwxd 1y ago
> Sensitivity to suffering and the need to protect the vulnerable > Concerns about equality, proportionality, and reciprocity > Resistance to domination and restriction of freedom Great. > Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group > Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition > Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual Here's where it all falls apart. Who decides "group" membership? Why is hierarchy and tradition so often allowed to violate the other "morals", even within the "group"? WTF is "contamination"? It's so easy to see the latter "morals" are just tools for tyrants. The former "morals" exclude them outright, so why does anyone accept them as being part of the same "foundation"? When I see people doing that, I feel the urge to "protect the vulnerable". I clearly see how they're giving up their equality and freedom to liars, cheats and thieves that will betray the group whenever it benefits them. It's frustrating as hell. The "group" should simply be "everyone", except the would-be tyrants. Guess some people just want that submissive life.

kgwxd 1y ago

> Sensitivity to suffering and the need to protect the vulnerable > Concerns about equality, proportionality, and reciprocity > Resistance to domination and restriction of freedom Great. > Valuing group cohesion and detecting threats to the group > Respect for legitimate hierarchy and tradition > Protection against contamination, both physical and spiritual Here's where it all falls apart. Who decides "group" membership? Why is hierarchy and tradition so often allowed to violate the other "morals", even within the "group"? WTF is "contamination"? It's so easy to see the latter "morals" are just tools for tyrants. The former "morals" exclude them outright, so why does anyone accept them as being part of the same "foundation"? When I see people doing that, I feel the urge to "protect the vulnerable". I clearly see how they're giving up their equality and freedom to liars, cheats and thieves that will betray the group whenever it benefits them. It's frustrating as hell. The "group" should simply be "everyone", except the would-be tyrants. Guess some people just want that submissive life.