RE: How important are each of Haight's Five Foundations of Morality to you?
October 26, 2016 at 2:35 pm
(This post was last modified: October 26, 2016 at 5:58 pm by Whateverist.)
(October 25, 2016 at 9:09 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: A A B B C for me.
Care/Harm: Really, on some level, isn't this the entire fucking point of morality?
Fairness/Reciprocity: Really, just the logical growth of Care/Harm.
InGroup/Loyalty: Okay in small doses, but can easily become a very dangerous thing indeed.
Authority: The way I see it, trusting in authorities is okay if you've scrutinised them beforehand and have found them reasonably trustworthy. That said, there are very few in power who actually are.
Purity: Is for drinking water, not people.
From my point of view (and apparently that of many other's) Fairness/Reciprocity is as compelling in its own right as Care/Harm. I guess you're thinking that Fairness/Reciprocity is always concerned with equity in bestowing care or avoiding harm. But I think the impulse to protect or nurture is pretty distinct from the impulse to reciprocate fairly, at least they feel distinct.
Anytime you analyze something like moral experience into categories you'll find excesses both of lumping and of splitting, but we won't always agree on which are the more egregious. I think there are interesting ways in which the others are related as well. For example, for the way I interpret them, InGroup/Loyalty and Purity/Sanctity seem almost opposite.
The biggest take away for me it to reflect on how people who experience morality differently than I and would probably rank the five moral dimensions differently, don't do so because they've made some mistake in calculation. In the same way, the people who are more similar to me and I didn't get any calculation right. We are just moved/affected by human interactions differently. The video suggests that all five were necessary in our evolution/development. I think that is an interesting hypothesis.
