I am comfortable with the label secular humanist and political liberal but lately I have been reading and rereading some books that point out some potential deficiencies in liberal/ secular humanistic approaches. The psychologist Jonathan Haidt writes about the moral foundations that underlie political ideologies and why opposing groups have such a hard time understanding the "reasoning" of their adversaries.
Based on his research, he identifies two or three foundations upon which most liberals base their moral and political reasoning-harm/care, fairness, and liberty/oppression. Conservatives tend to emphasize a broader range which includes the aforementioned harm/care and fairness but with less emphasis on those two and with additional foundations of authority, sanctity, and loyalty.
Haidt's research indicates conservatives valuing all five roughly equally,whereas liberals value harm/care and fairness far more than the others ( Without getting into great detail both ideologies also value liberty vs oppression albeit with differing conceptions).
The research is based on extensive surveys and elaborated in Haidt's books and articles. If interested, you can also find TED talks and other online relevant lectures he has given. A consistent theme is that if we can overcome the confirmation bias, the myth of pure evil, and other obstacles , we can learn from our opponents.
Borrowing on anthropological research and citing both his and other psychologists' work, Haidt lays out a horizontal x-axis or closeness/liking dimension by which we orient toward others- close versus distant relatives, friends v, strangers, etc. There is also a hierarchical/status or y –axis where much mental apparatus is in place for status recognition in all cultures, likely emanating from the tens of thousands of tribal generations.
Secular and religious folks typically negotiate in these two dimensions, but a vertical dimension is something religious people disproportionally grasp. Haidt is an atheist but he acknowledges the widespread ethic of divinity or sacredness-with or without god- that many apply to observations and experiences in both social and nature oriented experiences. This seems to be a human tendency that exists far and wide and perhaps is not studied enough by the secular minded.
People feel uplifted or degraded by action of others(good or bad deeds) and even natural phenomenon can produce the same effects (think national parks or grotesque animal behavior). Haidt uses Abbot's novel Flatland as an example of the relative impoverishment of living in a two-dimensional existence and he relates the evolution of the emotion of disgust as sort of a boundary marker with more than the obvious biological selection benefits.
The basic argument is that while clearly societies that idealize purity have a tendency toward ugly mistreatments of minorities(Nazi Germany, the American South in previous eras) - a real danger, the other extreme of ignoring a vertical dimension where the only purpose is unlimited freedom and self expression and self development is also problematic. Anomie and rampant narcissism are likely results. Moderation and balance may be more wise.
Communitarian impulses often cause Americans to break out in rashes but I see hyper individualism or more precisely narcissistic tendencies as more pervasive than the downside of more group oriented societies grounded more in loyalty. We obsess over and mythologize the effects of self-esteem. Mandarin contains no equivalent concept.
As far as the sacred/divine dimension, we all probably have semi- sacred places or experiences as supernaturalism is not necessary. I think the elevation that accompanies our special settings, rituals or events is important to our existence, so again perhaps we can learn from our usual adversaries.
Hmmm..alright then. I get about 98% of all that, but there doesn't seem to be a punch line unless I missed it.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Hmmm..alright then. I get about 98% of all that, but there doesn't seem to be a punch line unless I missed it.
I got the other 2%...so....er..........great then.
Quote from: "PJS"I am comfortable with the label secular humanist and political liberal but lately I have been reading and rereading some books that point out some potential deficiencies in liberal/ secular humanistic approaches. The psychologist Jonathan Haidt writes about the moral foundations that underlie political ideologies and why opposing groups have such a hard time understanding the "reasoning" of their adversaries.
Based on his research, he identifies two or three foundations upon which most liberals base their moral and political reasoning-harm/care, fairness, and liberty/oppression. Conservatives tend to emphasize a broader range which includes the aforementioned harm/care and fairness but with less emphasis on those two and with additional foundations of authority, sanctity, and loyalty.
Haidt's research indicates conservatives valuing all five roughly equally,whereas liberals value harm/care and fairness far more than the others ( Without getting into great detail both ideologies also value liberty vs oppression albeit with differing conceptions).
The research is based on extensive surveys and elaborated in Haidt's books and articles. If interested, you can also find TED talks and other online relevant lectures he has given. A consistent theme is that if we can overcome the confirmation bias, the myth of pure evil, and other obstacles , we can learn from our opponents.
Borrowing on anthropological research and citing both his and other psychologists' work, Haidt lays out a horizontal x-axis or closeness/liking dimension by which we orient toward others- close versus distant relatives, friends v, strangers, etc. There is also a hierarchical/status or y –axis where much mental apparatus is in place for status recognition in all cultures, likely emanating from the tens of thousands of tribal generations.
Secular and religious folks typically negotiate in these two dimensions, but a vertical dimension is something religious people disproportionally grasp. Haidt is an atheist but he acknowledges the widespread ethic of divinity or sacredness-with or without god- that many apply to observations and experiences in both social and nature oriented experiences. This seems to be a human tendency that exists far and wide and perhaps is not studied enough by the secular minded.
People feel uplifted or degraded by action of others(good or bad deeds) and even natural phenomenon can produce the same effects (think national parks or grotesque animal behavior). Haidt uses Abbot's novel Flatland as an example of the relative impoverishment of living in a two-dimensional existence and he relates the evolution of the emotion of disgust as sort of a boundary marker with more than the obvious biological selection benefits.
The basic argument is that while clearly societies that idealize purity have a tendency toward ugly mistreatments of minorities(Nazi Germany, the American South in previous eras) - a real danger, the other extreme of ignoring a vertical dimension where the only purpose is unlimited freedom and self expression and self development is also problematic. Anomie and rampant narcissism are likely results. Moderation and balance may be more wise.
Communitarian impulses often cause Americans to break out in rashes but I see hyper individualism or more precisely narcissistic tendencies as more pervasive than the downside of more group oriented societies grounded more in loyalty. We obsess over and mythologize the effects of self-esteem. Mandarin contains no equivalent concept.
As far as the sacred/divine dimension, we all probably have semi- sacred places or experiences as supernaturalism is not necessary. I think the elevation that accompanies our special settings, rituals or events is important to our existence, so again perhaps we can learn from our usual adversaries.
Love your avatar. Foley's War is such a great show and character. As for your post, I must admit that I didn't take the time to read such heavy material. The little I did read I agree with, and unlike the other response I get it. But like the other response I am not invested enough in the narative to actually discuss in length the merits of you OP.
Conservatives value harm, care, fairness? Since when? How can you have sacredness and divinity without God when both require it by definition? Rituals are important? Only for the insecure. And calling individualism and unlimited freedom narcissism is a Poisoning the Well fallacy. As long as unlimited freedom is understood to include being responsible how is this wrong? This whole article sounds like propaganda for Conservative principles that have resulted in every problem we have in our society now because they want unlimited freedom without responsibility, even though it shows what Hitler did with unlimited freedom without having responsibility for the harm they were doing. There is absolutely nothing Liberals can learn from Conservatives accept not to buy into their idealism from the results they produce. They talk about Obama wanting to be a King while Bush said he regretted not being a dictator so he could get things done the way he wanted. Solitary
Pretty dense, I have to break it down piecemeal to comprehend it, but
QuoteAs far as the sacred/divine dimension, we all probably have semi- sacred places or experiences as supernaturalism is not necessary. I think the elevation that accompanies our special settings, rituals or events is important to our existence, so again perhaps we can learn from our usual adversaries.
I have stated here previously that I find a spiritualistic/uplifting sense in nature, the release of being away from civilization and alone in a pristine environment, so yes I agree. And ritual behavior is part of our culture. The lead in to a football game with the coin toss, cheerleaders and celebration, all of that- even tailgating prior to the game- harken to rituals performed for centuries in various cultures. Individually they may not matter, but for the group it does.
You are correct, some people can't live without ritual behavior because they are insecure. I always carried a rabbits foot and security blanket when I skydived. And when I was in nature alone it was being closer to the Great Spirit, and my Spirit Guide Thunder Bird when it was stormy. :shock: :-D Solitary
Quote from: "PJS"The basic argument is that while clearly societies that idealize purity have a tendency toward ugly mistreatments of minorities(Nazi Germany, the American South in previous eras) - a real danger, the other extreme of ignoring a vertical dimension where the only purpose is unlimited freedom and self expression and self development is also problematic. Anomie and rampant narcissism are likely results. Moderation and balance may be more wise.
Assuming all this is correct, what's the best strat? Secular liberalism mixed with religiosity? Is that sort of "moderation" possible or desirable?
Imagine a clean slate. Humanity prior to any sort of civilization. What sort of society is the best society and how do you get there?
QuoteCommunitarian impulses often cause Americans to break out in rashes but I see hyper individualism or more precisely narcissistic tendencies as more pervasive than the downside of more group oriented societies grounded more in loyalty. We obsess over and mythologize the effects of self-esteem. Mandarin contains no equivalent concept.
The age old individualism/communalism debate. I've heard a lot about that, but mainly whatever people intuitively feel to be the case, rarely any sort of empirical comparison. Color me skeptical about claims regarding this.
QuoteAs far as the sacred/divine dimension, we all probably have semi- sacred places or experiences as supernaturalism is not necessary. I think the elevation that accompanies our special settings, rituals or events is important to our existence, so again perhaps we can learn from our usual adversaries.
I don't understand the last sentence. Okay, we all have cultural stuff that's important to us and a sort of "spiritual" drive at times. So what?
Quote from: "PJS"Based on his research, he identifies two or three foundations upon which most liberals base their moral and political reasoning-harm/care, fairness, and liberty/oppression. Conservatives tend to emphasize a broader range which includes the aforementioned harm/care and fairness but with less emphasis on those two and with additional foundations of authority, sanctity, and loyalty.
Haidt's research indicates conservatives valuing all five roughly equally,whereas liberals value harm/care and fairness far more than the others ( Without getting into great detail both ideologies also value liberty vs oppression albeit with differing conceptions).
Quote from: "Solitary"Conservatives value harm, care, fairness? Since when?
It's broadly true. Conservatives do tend to value similar things as liberals, but weight them very differently. (Or have differing conceptions of them, but in that case, is it really the same thing?) Though, given the last few years (and the perennial insurrectionist/secessionist rhetoric) I'm not entirely sure they're as big on authority/loyalty as advertised.
But the main difference between the two camps isn't their foundational values, but major factual discrepancies between the two worldviews. While both camps have their ever-popular falsehoods, conservatives in the U.S. are on a league of their own with their eager embrace of factually incorrect claims about the world and unwillingness to abandon them.
Hi PJS, long time have seen a post from you.
One thing I've noticed missing from Haight's analysis are the fundamental economic realities. This is where I inevitably irate both the right and the left. Just to give you a few examples.
On the conservative side in the case of the Bengazi attack: one of the GOP's criticism on the Obama admin was that it did not provide enough security that resulted in the ambassador's killing. However, securing every embassies/consulates throughout the world would bring the government's spending through the roof, a sore point for all conservatives who believe that government spending should always be reduced. With no knowledge of economic realities, the right often ends up espousing contradictory positions.
On the liberal side: just recently we had a few threads here on the minimum wages. Most liberals favor an increase in the minimum wage. But economic realities say that such policies will increase the unemployment rate, something that most liberals are against. Again, being ignorant of basic economic principles lead the liberals to contradictory positions.
The analogy here is this: a pilot is about to take off, and radios in to the tower, "please turn off gravity so that I can have an easier time to take off". Now we all know that this would sound crazy. But similarly, there is a law in economics that is stronger than any government, institution or corporation, and that is the law of demand/supply. Most people are clueless about it and make unrealistic demands from the government or whatever political/economic system in place. Or as the above examples show, people are making criticisms without realizing they are upholding contradictory positions.
The fact is that the general public, ignorant on economics principle, more likely than not will vote for politicians who are themselves ignorant of those principles, and the result is gridlock on the political arena. So to the Haight's six innate moral foundations: 1- care/harm; 2- fairness/cheating; 3- liberty/oppression; 4- loyalty/betrayal; 5- authority/subversion; 6- sanctity/degradation, I would add a seventh one - knowledge/ignorance or the desire for the pursuit of truth/ the desire to revel into fantasy.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies.
Perhaps it will help to clarify a few points.
First, Haidt's theory of social intutionism builds upon Hume's idea that reason often serves the passions. The theory is descriptive in nature. That is, moral intuitions or gut feelings often precede the reasons people give for their judgments, and justifications are then post hoc additions. This cuts across political ideology but conservatives tend to use more of the foundations as I described above. There are major published studies that demonstrate this tendency( which leads to no preferable approach as again it is descriptive, not normative).
A few take-outs for me:
1. Political discourse is well served when people who disagree with each other at least attempt to identify and understand unstated premises. In a democracy, debate void of any attempt to understand one's foes is pointless and antithetical to compromise.
2. At the individual level, I believe our lives are fuller when we acknowledge a vertical or sacred dimension (sacred can mean revered if you get hung up on the definition ). I cannot provide scientific evidence for this benefit but cultural anthropologists do recognize the human mind's tendency to perceive this dimension-with or without gods - perhaps we should take it seriously.(Haidt's point)
3.I would make the same argument for devoting oneself to something bigger than oneself as contributing to happiness, but the scientific evidence is correlational only, as far as I know. So place that in the category with dozens of decisions/approaches we make without strong scientific support, largely on personal observation and experience with all the accompanying limitations.
4. Since someone brought up rituals, I will make a final general point. Religions provide a sense of purpose, an ethical code, bring cohesion to social groups, and offer support and a sense of community.( Of course they also do many terrible things but these get hashed out constantly on these boards and I see no need to reiterate).
The take-out here is secular minded folks can pull off many if not all of these important functions but I think we can learn from some of the methods of traditional religious practice, as I have argued in other threads.
Quote from: "PJS"1. Political discourse is well served when people who disagree with each other at least attempt to identify and understand unstated premises. In a democracy, debate void of any attempt to understand one's foes is pointless and antithetical to compromise.
But we already do that. We're not exactly unfamiliar with the basic premises of conservationism, and more specifically, the Religious Right camp. There's honestly not that much to learn, let alone anything that anyone would want to emulate. Given their goals, premises, and methods, it's hard to say which one is the most distasteful.
Quote2. At the individual level, I believe our lives are fuller when we acknowledge a vertical or sacred dimension (sacred can mean revered if you get hung up on the definition ). I cannot provide scientific evidence for this benefit but cultural anthropologists do recognize the human mind's tendency to perceive this dimension-with or without gods - perhaps we should take it seriously.(Haidt's point)
This is still unsettlingly vague. What exactly is "sacred" or "revered" in a secular context?
Quote3.I would make the same argument for devoting oneself to something bigger than oneself as contributing to happiness, but the scientific evidence is correlational only, as far as I know. So place that in the category with dozens of decisions/approaches we make without strong scientific support, largely on personal observation and experience with all the accompanying limitations.
"Larger than oneself" is a bit of a ambiguous phrase. Religious people take that phrase to mean something quite different than irreligious people. Let's go with "cause" instead. I suppose having a cause to pursue might make people happier, but is that sort of thing actually a social good? I've known a few scumbag racists who made white nationalism their "something bigger than oneself". Didn't seem to do a lot for the community.
Quote4. Since someone brought up rituals, I will make a final general point. Religions provide a sense of purpose, an ethical code, bring cohesion to social groups, and offer support and a sense of community.( Of course they also do many terrible things but these get hashed out constantly on these boards and I see no need to reiterate).
I've seen that sense of purpose in action. Street preachers galore who are convinced its their heavenly duty to convert as many as possible to Christ or Allah or whatever (that attitude tends to get them reviled and eventually banned here). An ethics code that evaluates on action more on whether it is agreement with an authority (God, holy book, religious authority) than whether or not is causes harm. Ingroup cohesion at the expense of outgroup hostility. A sense of community based entirely on shared misapprehensions and superstitions. I'm not exactly finding anything I'd like to borrow there.
QuoteThe take-out here is secular minded folks can pull off many if not all of these important functions
Already done, to a large extent. And pulled them off much, much less self-destructively, to boot. I'd take a comic con over religious services for a sense of community any day of the week. Or friends and family for support over a confessional. Secular volunteerism over the religious equivalent (especially the with-strings-attached opportunist scum). As for ethics, it's actually a feat to get it as wrong under a secular banner as under a religious one. There's no need to emulate a glitchy, obsolete model.
Quotebut I think we can learn from some of the methods of traditional religious practice, as I have argued in other threads.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but what methods of traditional religious practice might these be? And what might we learn from them?
Quote from: "Hydra009"Quote from: "PJS"1. Political discourse is well served when people who disagree with each other at least attempt to identify and understand unstated premises. In a democracy, debate void of any attempt to understand one's foes is pointless and antithetical to compromise.
But we already do that. We're not exactly unfamiliar with the basic premises of conservationism, and more specifically, the Religious Right camp. There's honestly not that much to learn, let alone anything that anyone would want to emulate. Given their goals, premises, and methods, it's hard to say which one is the most distasteful.
Quote2. At the individual level, I believe our lives are fuller when we acknowledge a vertical or sacred dimension (sacred can mean revered if you get hung up on the definition ). I cannot provide scientific evidence for this benefit but cultural anthropologists do recognize the human mind's tendency to perceive this dimension-with or without gods - perhaps we should take it seriously.(Haidt's point)
This is still unsettlingly vague. What exactly is "sacred" or "revered" in a secular context?
Quote3.I would make the same argument for devoting oneself to something bigger than oneself as contributing to happiness, but the scientific evidence is correlational only, as far as I know. So place that in the category with dozens of decisions/approaches we make without strong scientific support, largely on personal observation and experience with all the accompanying limitations.
"Larger than oneself" is a bit of a ambiguous phrase. Religious people take that phrase to mean something quite different than irreligious people. Let's go with "cause" instead. I suppose having a cause to pursue might make people happier, but is that sort of thing actually a social good? I've known a few scumbag racists who made white nationalism their "something bigger than oneself". Didn't seem to do a lot for the community.
Quote4. Since someone brought up rituals, I will make a final general point. Religions provide a sense of purpose, an ethical code, bring cohesion to social groups, and offer support and a sense of community.( Of course they also do many terrible things but these get hashed out constantly on these boards and I see no need to reiterate).
I've seen that sense of purpose in action. Street preachers galore who are convinced its their heavenly duty to convert as many as possible to Christ or Allah or whatever (that attitude tends to get them reviled and eventually banned here). An ethics code that evaluates on action more on whether it is agreement with an authority (God, holy book, religious authority) than whether or not is causes harm. Ingroup cohesion at the expense of outgroup hostility. A sense of community based entirely on shared misapprehensions and superstitions. I'm not exactly finding anything I'd like to borrow there.
QuoteThe take-out here is secular minded folks can pull off many if not all of these important functions
Already done, to a large extent. And pulled them off much, much less self-destructively, to boot. I'd take a comic con over religious services for a sense of community any day of the week. Or friends and family for support over a confessional. Secular volunteerism over the religious equivalent (especially the with-strings-attached opportunist scum). As for ethics, it's actually a feat to get it as wrong under a secular banner as under a religious one. There's no need to emulate a glitchy, obsolete model.
Quotebut I think we can learn from some of the methods of traditional religious practice, as I have argued in other threads.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but what methods of traditional religious practice might these be? And what might we learn from them?
Point #1 I don't believe most secular liberals spend much time thinking about the relative weight of loyalty, authority, and sacredness that social conservatives value. I have always argued with social conservatives and I rarely did. Of course, I find the religious right absurd in many ways but recognize that moderate religious folks exist and I believe there is value in considering the foundations of the more reasonable among the religious.
#2We have sacred places where perhaps we met our future spouse, we have revered teachers, natural wonders, battle fields, buildings or athletic fields where significant events took place....
#3 "Cause" is fine and of course the point is I defend cherry picking of the useful and constructive aspects of religion. What I oppose is the idea that simply because certain parts of the buffet are foul or even dangerous we simply discard it all.
#4 /#5 Again there are obvious atrocities and many silly ideas. There are also wise teachings on forgiveness, suffering, and many ethical reminders and reinforcements. I think we may differ on the all or nothing implication of "the glitch model" There are great reasons to reject the supernatural and many of the methods that go along with the teachings of traditional religions. I do not claim any of the following borrowings are nonexistent as I have been part of UU and humanist groups that reject supernaturalism. (I was a fairly lousy example)
But I think as secular folks we can find some use in rituals that remind us of ideals, some use in calendars that structure (e.g. days of atonement), and even some value in singing with strangers.(as we occasionally do in bars, concerts). Again I simply believe that over thousands of years there are some useful nuggets and I unabashedly support cherry picking a few. I in no way claim to have specific recommendations on implementation but I think at times we discard too much.
Quote from: "PJS"But I think as secular folks we can find some use in rituals that remind us of ideals, some use in calendars that structure (e.g. days of atonement), and even some value in singing with strangers.(as we occasionally do in bars, concerts). Again I simply believe that over thousands of years there are some useful nuggets and I unabashedly support cherry picking a few. I in no way claim to have specific recommendations on implementation but I think at times we discard too much.
Me too. I think secular folk have a tendency toss out too much culture and tradition, there's some good stuff getting tossed out with the bad.
Quote from: "PJS"#4 /#5 Again there are obvious atrocities and many silly ideas. There are also wise teachings on forgiveness, suffering, and many ethical reminders and reinforcements. I think we may differ on the all or nothing implication of "the glitch model"
Seems like the most fundamental disagreement. I do not merely dislike some of the bad things that religious people do (symptoms), but the faith business entirely. Therefore, I disagree that we are "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" as theists usually phrase this same argument. Indeed, there are some wise teachings, but they exist entirely separate from the religion, as they always have. What sort of person appropriates something that's already theirs? :-k
And I'll take the glitch model one step further. This whole exercise is like going over an antique PC and trying to run its programs on a modern PC. Days of Atonement got deprecated like 5 versions ago and it only worked with the notoriously faulty SIN module in the first place! SHTAP.
Quote from: "Jack89"Me too. I think secular folk have a tendency toss out too much culture and tradition, there's some good stuff getting tossed out with the bad.
The people of the last century said the same of their own reformers. Three guesses as to who won that argument.