Conservative Atheism

[Whateverist]

I'll ignore your stance toward Trump for now.

I posted a comment in another thread and Whateverist asked me a few questions:

1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.

Is this referring to empathy?  I try to treat people how I would like to be treated.

This one puzzles me. Most conservatives seem to be against abortion and against leaving the choice to the woman who is carrying the fetus. But most conservatives seem to oppose free or reduced school lunches for the poor. Is there a reason why the unborn seem more deserving of care to conservatives than those already born?

 
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
[Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]

I think this means that laws should be applied equally to all people regardless of our differences.  If that is the core meaning of #2 then I believe in that statement. 

Proportionality needs some unpacking. Do you find no application for equality where proportionality doesn't do as well? For example, shouldn't the consequences handed out by the justice system apply absolutely equally to all regardless of wealth, education, race, age and so on? Surely there is no sense in which the amount of leniency one receives should be proportional to ones level of education, right?

3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."

I think loyalty is a crucial part of ones character, you can always tell who your true friends are when things go to hell.

But at what level is loyalty best applied? Why is the nation state privileged over others? I feel it much more strongly toward family, especially my mate. I also feel it in relationship to work and the people I work with. But neighborhood, city, state, hemisphere .. why nation? Why not work toward developing fellow feeling toward people everywhere? My idea of national patriotism is pride when my country comports itself as a good citizen in the world of nation states.

4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.

I am comfortable as a follower when the person leading is competent.  I have moved my self into leadership positions when I feel i am the best person for a job.  Rule by committee can be done but does not lend itself to quick decision making.   

This is probably the foundation which I hold in the lowest esteem. I would never have survived in the military.

5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).  
We think there are several other very good candidates for "foundationhood," especially:

I typically follow the rules and guidelines of society, and like society my values have changed over the years.  Some things i do not adhere to , but they do not harm anyone.

I think we are simpatico here. I am happy enough to endorse and support group norms and to enforce them through a system of society chosen laws. So I too am a rule follower by and large. But I would describe my approach to the vehicle code as: 1) no one gets hurt; 2) I don't attract any citations; 3) I do whatever pleases me so long as I don't violate 1 or 2.

6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in [url=http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0042366][/url], on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.

Part of this ties into #4 I have no problem being led by a competent leader.  If rules are fairly enforced than I'll tolerate short term incompetence.  I have been in situations where I have removed myself from the equation because of bad leadership with no way to rectify.  I have also helped similar situations by aiding in the removal of incompetent leaders, or obstructions.

I have no objection to being led by politicians who have been legally elected. Sadly it isn't up to me to determine if the leader is competent. Really, what does my finding them competent even mean apart from agreeing with the candidate's approach?

Nonetheless it is perfectly rational and important to oppose policy one finds reprehensible. I do it too.

I'm not sure how I'd rank them but I'm being called to dinner so later for that.