Why people vote republican (thought provoking)

[nianfong]

a very interesting article about morality and why people vote dem or rep.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08 ... index.html

[Darthwing Teorist]

Not related to politics, but I found the following passage very interesting:

For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).

and

The second conclusion was that the moral domain varies across cultures. Turiel's description of morality as being about justice, rights, and human welfare worked perfectly for the college students I interviewed at Penn, but it simply did not capture the moral concerns of the less elite groups—the working-class people in both countries who were more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles. ("Your dog is family, and you just don't eat family.")

This is interesting because I tend to think like the "working class" people, that the dog was part of family and it is wrong to eat it. This is probably related to some instinct against cannibalism.

What this research shows me is that the whole duality of reason vs feeling in morality is a double edged sword: you have to walk the fine edge balancing both reason and feeling. Otherwise, on one hand you allow feelings to make you take actions that may be wrong. And on the other hand you can let reasoning override your gut feelings and "brainwash" you. I think that both phenomena may be at the base of cults.



I mean, WTF, "A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog"!





PS:

I don't really care about flags, though I can undestand their symbolic significance, but the dog thing is something that only Chanchu would have done.

[Steve James]

Might we do better with an approach that defines moral systems by what they do rather than by what they value?

Here's my alternative definition: morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. It turns out that human societies have found several radically different approaches to suppressing selfishness, two of which are most relevant for understanding what Democrats don't understand about morality.

Well, I agree with the first statement completely, but I think that most in the business do. The term "morality" is too big, though; and there is probably little difference between the terms "morality" and "values." Or, they're easy to confuse. I.e., most people think their "values" are "moral." But, that's irrelevant to "morality."

Secondly, I agree that all societies have developed values (or mores) that try to suppress some forms of selfishness --but not as generally as he suggests. For example, in all kingdoms, it is always better to be the King. Moreover, it's almost expected that the king will have more just because he's the king. And, that is considered perfectly ok. The same can happen in a military dictatorship. My point is that most social systems have tried to increase social cohesion while limiting individual actions as much as deemed necessary for the society's survival. Still, this is just a minor disagreement.

Where I really disagree is when he identifies "Democrats" as being ignorant about "morality." To me, it'd be more accurate to say that the ideological platform of the Democratic party rejects the claims of the Republican ideologues that they represent the "moral" viewpoint. It's very true that there are people who prefer the security of Christianity to the uncertainty of agnosticism or atheism. So, they vote for the party that claims closest affiliation with Christian ideology. Marxist-Socialists don't; so socialism is considered disgusting.

Anyway, I think hes essentially asking fo a kind of assimilation. This hasn't worked in the past. People have converted, become Republicans, subscribed to The Nation, that still hasn't made them less disgusting. So, I think he's right. But, I don't think that Democrats can do anything about it without fundamentally changing their ideology.

Ya know, there are some who'd say that Southern Democrats (post Lyndon Johnson, especially) have little to do with the liberal ideas that he associates now with the Dem Party. Ultimately, how many Republicans will vote for the Dem candidate?

[Steve James]

Well, the dog thing: Frankly, lots of people would eat your dog or your kid, and your dog would certainly eat you. It happens all the time.
It's like incest. There are people who'd love to do your 18 year old daughter. But, if "you" did it, most would say that it was wrong.

So, if you don't want Fido to become a hot dog, keep him away from hungry people. They'll eat him after you've starved

Really, I understand why a person wouldn't kill an animal needlessly. But, needing to eat is one of the basics. If Fido's carcass could feed my child --or yours-- I think it'd be immoral not to make soup out of him. Then again, read about the Amundsen -- Scott expeditions, and their differences.

[Bär]

I'm just going to keep thinking that people vote republican because they're evil and/or stupid. It helps me sleep at night.

[DeusTrismegistus]

I'm just going to keep thinking that people vote republican because they're evil and/or stupid. It helps me sleep at night.

It helps many republicans sleep at night as well

[Darthwing Teorist]

Really, I understand why a person wouldn't kill an animal needlessly. But, needing to eat is one of the basics. If Fido's carcass could feed my child --or yours-- I think it'd be immoral not to make soup out of him. Then again, read about the Amundsen -- Scott expeditions, and their differences.

It depends on the context. Of course, if the family is going thhrough famine, Fido may become fair game. However the scenario did not say that, only that the poor thing was hit by a car. This suggests that the act of eating the dog was an act of opportunity, not of necessity. Of course, it all depends on that family's values and relationship with the pooch: on a farm, it may be viewed as a farm animal and people may be less attached to it. However, as a pet, it usually is part of the family. Unless they were Koreans and they were specifically raising it to become stew.

[Dmitri]

What's really sad is that people vote for parties instead of voting for persons.

We have several non-major-party presidential candidates who are legitimately running and there is absolutely NO media attention paid to them whatsoever.

[FigureFour]

so darth... im guessing youve never had the desire to recycle a dog to make a nice iron palm bag?

[Steve James]

It depends on the context. Of course, if the family is going thhrough famine, Fido may become fair game. However the scenario did not say that, only that the poor thing was hit by a car.

Well, morality shouldn't depend on the context. Either it's wrong to eat a dog or it's not. Just because someone thinks of a particular dog as a member of the family doesn't make it immoral to eat a dog. This reminds me of Vinny Ventura's conversation about pigs and dogs in "Pulp Fiction." But, it all boils down to you finding a way to reconcile that it is wrong to eat a dog, but ok to eat other animals.

Btw, I couldn't argue that it's right to eat a cow, except that that's why they call it "meat." Hey, nobody eats pigs feet because they "have" to. Eating meat is always a choice. Anyway, my point was that I would rather starve than eat my mom; but I might not for somebody else's. That doesn't make it right or wrong. It's just the way I feel about it.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

That whole article seemed partisan and highly biased.

Just sayin...

[TaoJoannes]

Well, the author admitted as much in the first paragraph.

[Darth Rock&Roll]

yeah, that was the give away...which kind of takes away from the whole and merely validates what people already want to believe...which makes it?

Don't get me wrong, McCain and the current crop of republicans (if you can call them that) are NOT anything I would vote for, but I wish to hell it could just be about the damn facts.

[Ian]

What's really sad is that people vote for parties instead of voting for persons.

[Dmitri]

A-motherfuckin'-man.

It's useless though, the mob will be the mob.
(Cue Steve James: "But you are part of the 'mob' too!" )