I will try one last time, because we are way off track.  Maybe it would help if 
you would read the introductory chapter to the book:  
http://righteousmind.com/about-the-book/introductory-chapter/.  Quoting from 
Wikipedia, Haidt identifies six moral values which are cross-cultural: 

1.Care for others, protecting them from harm. (He also referred to this 
dimension as Harm.)
2.Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
3.Loyalty to your group, family, nation. (He also referred to this dimension as 
Ingroup.)
4.Respect for tradition and legitimate authority. (He also referred to this 
dimension as Authority.)
5.Purity or Sanctity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.
6. Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and 
resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their 
liberty.

Haidt argues that there are a group of people for whom all six values are real 
"values".  Let's call them, just for fun, conservatives.  And then there are 
another group of people who "value" nos. 1, 2 and 6, but don't "value" 3, 4, 
and 5.  Just for fun, let's call them "progressive liberals."  Then it gets 
interesting, because Haidt then argues that because "conservatives" have a 
broader range of key values than progressive liberals, progressive liberals 
have a real difficult time understanding conservatives, because they can't 
relate to the additional values held by the conservatives.  Conversely, 
conservatives do understand the progressive liberals, because they share the 
same values -- the only difference is that they have additional competing 
values that figure into the moral decision making.

David Shemano

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:42 AM
To: 'Progressive Economics'
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] The Righteous Mind

David Shemano.  Haidt is trying to create a meta-analysis of certain universal 
values . . .

  -------

And that is where he goes off the track. There is no such thing as a "universal 
value," and any analysis grounded in that fallacy loses its relevance to 
actuality. As I said, the word "righteous" cast serious doubt on the book's 
interest.

Carrol

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to