Morals and Political leanings?

[miss fortune]

I read this a while back and thought that it was rather interesting and wanted to know what other people thought on the issue!

http://www.yourmorals.org/5f_new_irb.php?nextpage=5f_new

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18mora.html

Thanks! Hope you find this as interesting as I did!!!

 

[prplchknz]

according to the first test I'm less moral then both democrats and republicans.

 

[miss fortune]

I scored high on fairness and loyalty- but I got a zero on purity (I can't say that I care WHAT people do as long as they aren't hurting someone!)

 

[warick]

I scored higher on everything than both groups, except on Harm, I got significantly lower.

 

[Kiddo]

I scored high on harm and fairness but I received lower than both groups in the other three options. Authority and purity? No thank you.

 

[brazz]

I scored highest in fairness and harm and lowest in purity and authority and kind of in the middle for loyalty... for all of them, I was less moral than both liberals and conservatives.

 

[Athenian200]

I scored highest on Fairness and Authority, but fairly low on everything else. Harm and Purity were both fairly low. Loyalty was about average. It sounds about like my alignment result, Lawful Neutral.

 

[warick]

I just now read the second link, did anyone else read it? To summarize, liberals generally are high in the Harm and Fairness, and low everywhere else, conservatives are a little lower than average on the first two, but generally higher on everything else. Basically, there are only two kinds of morals important to libs, and 5 to cons. Which is why they have such drastically different viewpoints. There are so many political issues that are black and white, now it kind of makes sense that some people can be so sure they are right when the other person is convinced they are right and believe the exact opposite. It was pretty eye-opening to me, I have a hard time dealing with people that don't think like I do. The conclusion of the paper is that libs (the audience of this paper is other lib college professors) need to learn to think like a con in order to beat them politically. I guess if a conservative wrote the paper he would come to the same conclusion.

 

[Eternue-MDL]

I have only an inkling if I answered part 1 correctly. Nonetheless, my scores were:

Harm: Conservative < Me < Liberal
Fairness: Me = Conservative < Liberal
Loyalty: Me = Liberal < Conservative
Authority: Liberal <= Me < Conservative
Purity: Liberal < Conservative < Me

So, I guess the only thing I maxed out on was Purity.

 

[miss fortune]

umm.. NY Times is my home page and I'm certainly not a college professor- I'm about as working class as they come! NY Times editorial page is the liberal part- that's how papers get their liberal or conservative reputations! How do I know this? I read on average 5 papers a day with reputations spanning the whole political spectrum- the news is the same, the editorials just differ.

 

[warick]

umm.. NY Times is my home page and I'm certainly not a college professor- I'm about as working class as they come! NY Times editorial page is the liberal part- that's how papers get their liberal or conservative reputations! How do I know this? I read on average 5 papers a day with reputations spanning the whole political spectrum- the news is the same, the editorials just differ.

I'm all confused now. I followed your link yesterday and got sent tohttp://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.graham.2007.when-morality-opposes-justice.pdf (I think). I've got to go back to work now, I will read your link later.

 

[warick]

I have only an inkling if I answered part 1 correctly. Nonetheless, my scores were:

Harm: Conservative < Me < Liberal
Fairness: Me = Conservative < Liberal
Loyalty: Me = Liberal < Conservative
Authority: Liberal <= Me < Conservative
Purity: Liberal < Conservative < Me

So, I guess the only thing I maxed out on was Purity.

Would that make you a religious liberal?

 

[CzeCze]

I would have registered but I don't want the government spying on me and using my answers later to throw me indefinitely in some god-forsaken off-shore holding cel. I like the use of my legs and not drowning, thank you.

 

[Eternue-MDL]

Would that make you a religious liberal?

The author of the test would probably apply the same label, but the test, like most, failed to take into account one's reasoning. To give an example, there was another test identifying whether you think it is ethical to violate a law which you think is morally unjust. Across the board, I do believe it is ethical to violate a law that is morally unjust, but I also believe that it depends upon who you are. If you are in an office such as the mayor of San Francisco or a judge and have sworn some oath to uphold the law, then it is unethical for that individual to blatantly violate the law they swore to uphold. Does that make any sense?

The test does to some degree identify how I view things: If it causes harm to others, there is something wrong with it. If it is impure, there is something wrong with it. The matter of fairness seems to mean little to me here. I do find that life is not always fair: for example, if someone is a habitual thief for self-gain, I would sentence him or her to several years in prison; but if someone was a habitual thief out of what seemed to be necessity, I would require repayment and look for rehabilitation and addressing the causes of the crime. The sentencing would seem unfair if one looked solely at the issue of theft. Is that an accurate depiction of researchers' concept of fairness as applied to morality/politics?
I don't know if I understood the dimension of authority correctly, also concerning loyalty. Could someone please re-frame or use different terminology than the authors of the study to explain the last two in relation to morality/politics for me?

 

[Kiddo]

If it is impure, there is something wrong with it.

When I read those questions it made me think of the old "chastity" arguments, as well as the arguments right wingers tend to use against homosexuality. So even though I really value purity, I just couldn't bring myself to vote very high for those standards. Of what kind of purity arguments were you thinking?

 

[Eternue-MDL]

When I read those questions it made me think of the old "chastity" arguments, as well as the arguments right wingers tend to use against homosexuality. So even though I really value purity, I just couldn't bring myself to vote very high for those standards. Of what kind of purity arguments were you thinking?

I was thinking on different levels. From esoteric to the mundane. Let us approach chastity. I believe that the safest form of sex is no sex at all so abstinence education has its own value. However, I would not go so far as to discourage prophylactics, pre-conception birth control, and STD or family planning education in schools. These are all useful and intelligent methods of informing others. A lot of what I believe on is based on what I understand of God, and I know God is life. So, I value life. I don't even think I could shoot a mammal for food without feeling awful, though I know it needs to be done or else I won't have beef! If I had to secure my own sources of food, I would only eat fish and poultry. I am simply concerned that if I find myself capable of killing warm-blooded earth-borne creatures, I could become more capable of doing so to a human and that is just entirely unacceptable. It's probably ridiculous to many of you, but that's just a concern of mine.