It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Liberals and Conservatives Live In Different Moral Universes

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 05:13 AM
I read a great article on Alternet a while back and I thought I would share a snippet of it with you...

With all that in mind, Haidt identified five foundational moral impulses. As succinctly defined by Northwestern University's McAdams, they are:

• Harm/care. It is wrong to hurt people; it is good to relieve suffering.

• Fairness/reciprocity. Justice and fairness are good; people have certain rights that need to be upheld in social interactions.

• In-group loyalty. People should be true to their group and be wary of threats from the outside. Allegiance, loyalty and patriotism are virtues; betrayal is bad.

• Authority/respect. People should respect social hierarchy; social order is necessary for human life.

• Purity/sanctity. The body and certain aspects of life are sacred. Cleanliness and health, as well as their derivatives of chastity and piety, are all good. Pollution, contamination and the associated character traits of lust and greed are all bad.

Haidt's research reveals that liberals feel strongly about the first two dimensions -- preventing harm and ensuring fairness -- but often feel little, or even feel negatively, about the other three. Conservatives, on the other hand, are drawn to loyalty, authority and purity, which liberals tend to think of as backward or outdated. People on the right acknowledge the importance of harm prevention and fairness but not with quite the same energy or passion as those on the left.

The author of the article, Jon Haidt, does a great job examining the inherent moral differences in liberal and conservative philosophies.

Considering the extremely divisive nature of our current political landscape, it would benefit everyone to realize that we all share the same core values as other sane, functional human beings.

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:41 PM
The article is well worth a read although it is some what devalued by the fact that not everyone fits neatly into the Liberal / Conservative labels or category's .

So in terms of the article what can I Identify with ?
Loyalty to ones country ever since the Vietnam freedom of speech has triumphed over what was once regarded as treason . For those Australian dock unions who went on strike in protest at Australia role in Vietnam or , those who offered medical aid to the Viet Cong committed treason . The lack of a generation who have fought a world war against tyranny has seemed to result in bad citizenry .

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:44 PM
I kind of agree, it does seem to be a "glass half empty/half full" situation in the way that:

Should we protect our own country by increasing stability here or preventing things from happening overseas?

Should we lower taxes to make families' lives easier, or raise taxes to improve the system to make their lives easier?

If the country is healthy, we should provide free healthcare, or if the country is healthy people should be able to provide their own.

The article may be on to something.

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:58 AM
Hmm. So, in terms of the article, how much of someone's political beliefs come from nature and how much from nurture? If someone is a conservative, is that because of how they were brought up, or some inner psychological reason?

top topics

log in