And like Tam says, there's no sense throwing away good material at an away game. Besides, this is important.
So Miguel posted up this article, and a good discussion was had in the comments...
...which led me to seek out and find this article from January at the Volokh Conspiracy.
It's worth looking at because it gives a unique glimpse into the Leftist/"Progressive"/Collectivist mind. As it happens, conservatives and libertarians (both big 'L' and small 'l' varieties) -- hereafter referred to as "The Right" -- really do resolve moral dilemmas differently from Leftists. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt identified five (or six) "vectors of morality" people use to decide the "correct" position, and noted that while the Right tends to weigh all five (or six) more-or-less equally, the Left places value in only two, essentially ignoring the rest.
Perhaps most interestingly (and perhaps as a direct result), while the Left is unable to accurately determine or predict what the Right thinks and does, the Right has no trouble at all figuring out the Left's positions.
Where the Left can seem to justify anything based on their values, the Right can only "universally" justify a few things and seems confused or conflicted on others. According to Haidt, this happens when the five (or six) factors conflict. The Left, using only two factors -- the most highly subjective two at that, in my opinion -- rarely experiences this dilemma. On the other hand, where all the values align and agree, the Right has a much stronger moral position and a "thicker", more layered justification for holding that position.
I believe this is also why the Left relies so heavily on straw-man arguments, projection, and other logical fallacies; they really don't understand the conservative mind or value system, so they have to fill in the gaps somehow. Their conclusions are technically logically sound, but their initial assumptions are way off-base. Garbage in, garbage out, as it were.
The take-away is this: We really can't reason with the Left on issues of right/wrong; their moral compasses are calibrated to a different value of North.
Just thought I would share. Enjoy!
Excellent post! And a fascinating expansion of the discussion through your various links. I have a hunch I'm going to have to buy Haight's book and a brace of highlighters.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that fears are at the core of many of the reflexively leftist (as opposed to intellectual liberals.) These aptly named "Squishies" fear challenges, conflict, and therefore, the strength of "others." You can see it in the left's education system and its absolute terror at anything faintly resembling a pop-tart weapon. They fear strong men, and when women also exhibit strength, they retreat to their mom's basement and petulantly tap out a yippy screed. They are the sheep, petrified by the sheepdogs. -- And often, they dismiss, discount or ignore the scary existence of the real wolves.
Frankly, many conservatives/ libertarians consider a strong, capable, confident woman *really hawt*. ;)
Agreed! I'm considering picking up a copy of the book, too.
DeleteI've always been confused by the "fear the sheepdog" reflex exhibited in many (if not most) of the "sheeple". It's a skill-set; a tool -- like a gun, it can be used for good or evil, depending on the person -- but they seem to fear the tool more than the person wielding it, to the point of forgetting or disregarding the truly dangerous individuals among us. The "Squishies" really do fear the strength of others (especially "Others") so much they'd prefer nobody have that strength (legally) over good people having the strength to counter the bad people. That the bad people would still have the power to inflict harm -- and absent sheepdogs would use it with impunity -- seems a notion that doesn't occur to them.
I agree about strong/capable women, too. I'm fortunate enough to be married to one. ;)