The Baha'i Studies Listserv http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Politics_(book)
I was on Wikipedia. It somehow led to the article above by either clicking random page or click articles links. Morality, justice, child development mean different things to different people in the quotes below. Virtues as well. They can mean different things to different people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(virtue) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperance_(virtue) Prudence and virtue Seneca, the Roman Stoic, said that perfect prudence is indistinguishable from perfect virtue. Thus, in considering all consequences, a prudent person would act in the same way as a virtuous person.[citation needed] The same rationale was expressed by Plato in Meno, when he wrote that people only act in ways that they perceive will bring them maximum good. It is the lack of wisdom that results in the making of a bad choice instead of a prudent one. In this way, wisdom is the central part of virtue. Plato realized that because virtue was synonymous with wisdom it could be taught, a possibility he had earlier discounted. He then added "correct belief" as an alternative to knowledge, proposing that knowledge is merely correct belief that has been thought through and "tethered". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue The proposed solution: a metaphorical model Lakoff tries to resolve these difficulties through a model in which liberals and conservatives are shown to have different and contradictory worldviews. These worldviews are thought to conflict in a number of ways relevant to the understanding of politics. Nonetheless, Lakoff claims that all of these differences center around the two sides' respective understandings of a single concept - the ideal nuclear family. The family is central to Lakoff because he views the family as Americans most common model for understanding the country; that is Americans often metaphorically understand their country as a family, with the government corresponding to the parent(s) of the family and the individual citizens corresponding to the children. Thus, one's understanding of how a family is best organized will have direct implications for how the country should be governed. Liberals' ideal conceptualization follows the model of the "nurturant parent" family, while Conservatives' follow the model of the "strict father" family. Given the importance of these concepts in Moral Politics, it is important to consider their meaning along with how each view suggests and is justified by a corresponding view of the nature of child rearing, morality, and justice. A "nurturant parent" family is one that revolves around every family member caring for and being cared for by every other family member, with open communication between all parties, and with each family member pursuing their own vision of happiness. The nurturant parent model is also correlated with the following views: Morality: The basis of morality is in understanding, respecting, and helping other people, and in seeking the happiness of one's self and of others. The primary vices are selfishness and anti-social behavior. Child development: Children develop morality primarily through interacting with and observing good people, especially good parents. Punishment is necessary in some cases, but also has the potential to backfire, causing children to adopt more violent or more anti-social ways. Though children should, in general, obey their parents, they will develop best if allowed to question their parents' decisions, to hear justifications for their parents' rules, and so on. Moral development is a lifelong process, and almost no one is so perfect as not to need improvement. Justice: The world is not without justice, but it is far from the ideal of justice. Many people, for example, do not seem properly rewarded for their hard work and dedication. We must work hard to improve everyone's condition. In contrast, the "strict father" family revolves around the idea that parents teach their children how to be self-reliant and self-disciplined through "tough love". This is correlated with the following views: Morality: Evil is all around us, constantly tempting us. Thus, the basis of morality is strong moral character, which requires self-reliance and self-discipline. The primary vices are those that dissolve self-discipline, such as laziness, gluttony, and indulgent sexuality. Child development: Children develop self-discipline, self-reliance, and other virtues primarily through rewards and punishment, a system of "tough love". Since parents know the difference between right and wrong and children still do not, obedience to the parents is very important. Moral development basically lasts only as long as childhood; it's important to get it right the first time, because there is no "second chance". Justice: The world may be a difficult place to live, but it is basically just; people usually get what they deserve. The difficulties in one's life serve as a test to sort the deserving from the undeserving. Lakoff uses this model to answer the central questions framed above - why is there such clear grouping on issues that separate liberals and conservatives, and, conversely, why don't we find more issue-by-issue voters? Lakoff claims that one's take on any given political issue is largely determined by which model one adopts. Thus, in Part IV, "The Hard Issues", he tries to demonstrate how the liberal and conservative worldviews outlined above lead to typical liberal and conservative positions on a wide range of issues, including taxes, the death penalty, environmental regulations, affirmative action, education, and abortion. As to why liberals and conservatives view each other as incomprehensible on an issue-by-issue basis, Lakoff claims that this is due to each side failing to grasp the other side's worldview as well as not appreciating how different the other worldview is from its own. Failure to see or appreciate this gap results in both sides thinking the other is hopelessly irrational and immoral. Lakoff also uses this model to show how and why liberals and conservatives use different semantics, often even using the same words in very different ways. Liberals and conservatives have different worldviews and semantics are very much influenced by the worldview of the speaker. As Lakoff puts it, Words don't have meanings in isolation. Words are defined relative to a conceptual system. If liberals are to understand how conservatives use their words, they will have to understand the conservative conceptual system. (From chapter 2, "The Worldview Problem") Here, Lakoff is specifically referring to liberals' challenges in understanding conservatives. However, he obviously views the reverse situation as equally problematic. In addressing why conservatives and liberals choose different issues as the focus of their campaigns, Lakoff claims that this too finds explanation in the context of his model. In the 1994 elections, the Republican focus on "family values", while the Democrats largely ignored this framing, is key to Lakoff. He views this discrepancy as a sign that conservatives understand the Country is a Familymetaphor that lies behind people's views of politics much better than liberals do. And, by extension, this has been key to the success of the Republican Party. Sent from my iPad __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:arch...@mail-archive.com Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:leave-688890-27401.54f46e81b66496c9909bcdc2f7987...@list.jccc.edu Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to ly...@list.jccc.edu Or subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News (on-campus only) - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
