Stepping Outside the Moral Matrix: Moral Psychology

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most. And he challenges all of us to step outside of our moral Matrix and pledge to work toward a more civil, productive political process. (Recorded February 2008 in Monterey, California. Duration: 18:42.)

Jesus the Doctor

Jesus decided to come back to earth and incarnate as a medical doctor at an inner city overcrowded public hospital.

The first patient complained about going blind, Jesus put his hands on his eyes and commanded "Now go and see!" and, lo and behold, he was cured.

Another patient came in a wheelchair, Jesus put his hands on his head and commanded "Get up and walk!" The guy left pushing his own wheelchair.

Later patients in the line were asking about the new doctor, someone says "Meh... He's just like all the others... He won't even examine you properly and tells you to go away!"

Some people are too busy complaining to realize miracles may already be happening around them...

What Makes People Vote Republican?

Here's a follow up to the last post, an article by Jonathan Haidt.

JONATHAN HAIDT is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia, where he does research on morality and emotion and how they vary across cultures. He is the author of The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom.

What makes people vote Republican? Why in particular do working class and rural Americans usually vote for pro-business Republicans when their economic interests would seem better served by Democratic policies? We psychologists have been examining the origins of ideology ever since Hitler sent us Germany's best psychologists, and we long ago reported that strict parenting and a variety of personal insecurities work together to turn people against liberalism, diversity, and progress. But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death. People vote Republican because Republicans offer "moral clarity"—a simple vision of good and evil that activates deep seated fears in much of the electorate. Democrats, in contrast, appeal to reason with their long-winded explorations of policy options for a complex world.

Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.

But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is.

I began to study morality and culture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987. A then-prevalent definition of the moral domain, from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel, said that morality refers to "prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other." But if morality is about how we treat each other, then why did so many ancient texts devote so much space to rules about menstruation, who can eat what, and who can have sex with whom? There is no rational or health-related way to explain these laws. (Why are grasshoppers kosher but most locusts are not?) The emotion of disgust seemed to me like a more promising explanatory principle. The book of Leviticus makes a lot more sense when you think of ancient lawgivers first sorting everything into two categories: "disgusts me" (gay male sex, menstruation, pigs, swarming insects) and "disgusts me less" (gay female sex, urination, cows, grasshoppers ).

For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).

This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggled to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. I often had to correct people when they said things like "it's wrong because… um…eating dog meat would make you sick" or "it's wrong to use the flag because… um… the rags might clog the toilet." These obviously post-hoc rationalizations illustrate the philosopher David Hume's dictum that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them." This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion.

The second conclusion was that the moral domain varies across cultures. Turiel's description of morality as being about justice, rights, and human welfare worked perfectly for the college students I interviewed at Penn, but it simply did not capture the moral concerns of the less elite groups—the working-class people in both countries who were more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles. ("Your dog is family, and you just don't eat family.") From this study I concluded that the anthropologist Richard Shweder was probably right in a 1987 critique of Turiel in which he claimed that the moral domain (not just specific rules) varies by culture. Drawing on Shweder's ideas, I would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.

When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer. Conservative positions on gays, guns, god, and immigration must be understood as means to achieve one kind of morally ordered society. When Democrats try to explain away these positions using pop psychology they err, they alienate, and they earn the label "elitist." But how can Democrats learn to see—let alone respect—a moral order they regard as narrow-minded, racist, and dumb?

...

If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so.

Read the full text from Edge.org

Also, you can take a Morality Test here and see how you rate.

Regressivism: How Politics Are Being Affected by BS Religions

From Spiritus Temporis:

Regressivism (sometimes called reactionism) is a term used to critically denote policies, ideologies or philosophies that are characterized as advocating a reversal to ones long abandoned or deprecated. At the most fundamental level, what regressivism reacts against is modernity itself.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regressivism is in the same spectrum of political terms as progressivism and conservatism, and is used to distinguish between ideologies that advocate slow changes to those advocating a reversal. Obviously, regressivism is to the right of conservatism. Many social debates involve some degree of regressivism, where conflicts arise between new scientific issues and their interpreted moral ramifications.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The term "regressive" is a relatively recent one in political discourse. The reason it is coming into increasing use is that the old distinction liberal/conservative appears to have outlived its usefulness. When those two terms were introduced, in the historically optimistic time know as the Enlightenment, there was no question that society progresses over time, and that political institutions must adapt to these changes. The only question was whether this adaptation should be planned, with a systematic ideology to guide it, as is held by liberals, or gradual and "organic", as held by conservatives. Today however there exist influential groups calling themselves conservatives which hold not that we must adapt more gradually to change, but that we must abandon various achievements of modernity: the governance of international relations by international law; the regulation of the economy by the democratic state; science as an autonomous activity not subject to control by the state (it is claimed that there is no such thing as disinterested science, so that all science is "political"); the recognition that religion is a human activity, and so something that must be made rational by being subjected to critique. Since such groups are not conservative by definition, but radical, the introduction of the new political term "regressive" was required.

Somehow today's politics have been taken over by a mix of politics and religion. Unfortunately, the most vocal group seems to be of the Regressive kind, thinly disguised as conservatives.

There seems to be a yearning below the surface for war and the end of times, for an abandonment of one's self not by conscience but by ignorance. These people seem to care much more to impose their beliefs on others than to really know what their own beliefs mean or where they come from. They want to abandon themselves to a cause without being themselves conscious of what the cause really is, because they have "faith".

Unfortunately, spiritual advancement is a nuanced and hard to describe matter. How do you explain the difference between being conscious/ knowing/ experiencing and faith/ convincing yourself of something/ imagining? It's a fine line, and words ultimately fail at expressing it.

UPDATE: I don't mean to imply that I necessarily know more than anyone, but I think I do understand, from personal experience, where people like this are coming from, and I don't think it's a good place. People are entitled to their religious freedom, but I'll fight anyone that tries to impose their religious views on me, even if it's views I agree with.

As an illustration...

Man guilty of making boys flog themselves with blades in Muslim rite

A Muslim man was found guilty of child cruelty today in a British legal first after forcing two boys to beat themselves during a centuries-old Shia religious ceremony.

The jury at Manchester crown court found Syed Mustafa Zaidi, 44, guilty of two counts of child cruelty.

The boys, aged 13 and 15, were forced to beat themselves with a zanjeer zani, a wooden implement with chains and blades attached, during a ceremony to commemorate the death and martyrdom of a seventh-century Shia Muslim leader.

Zaidi, of Station Road, Eccles, Salford, also flogged himself during the ceremony at a community centre in Levenshulme, Manchester, on January 19.

Some countries have banned self-flagellation with the zanjeer zani. It has been substituted by men beating their bare chests. In Indonesia and some other countries, young children are formally encouraged to use a smaller version of the implement.

A 14-year-old boy, who was 13 at the time, said Zaidi told them both: "Start doing it, start doing it".

The boy told the jury: "We said 'We don't want to do it'."

"He kept pressuring him, make him do the knife thing, pulling him, trying to get his T-shirt off, pulling and pushing him. He was saying 'just do it, just do it'."

The boys had multiple lacerations to their backs, mainly superficial, with several deeper cuts.

Zaidi is to be sentenced on September 24.

From the Guardian

I'd say if the adult wants to flog himself (pun intended), go ahead. But he can't expect another country to abide by such radical rites.

I call this self-flagellation BS part of religion, but forcing others to do it... much worse.

Arpie

Mark Twain on Religion

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” —- Mark Twain

A religion that comes of thought, and study, and deliberate conviction, sticks best. The revitalized convert who is scared in the direction of heaven because he sees hell yawn suddenly behind him, not only regains confidence when his scare is over, but is ashamed of himself for being scared, and often becomes more hopelessly and malignantly wicked than he was before.—- Mark Twain

We blindly follow our beliefs because we fear the consequences as preached by religious leaders . We are brainwashed in a way that limits our ability to think, study and form a deliberate conviction based on our ideals. Some form of religion and religious beliefs are vital for our own personal growth and character building, but we should never allow dumbfounded reasoning or scare tactics to guide our religious beliefs or to form a stereotypical view of others who don’t conform to our own. A religion should show us the pathway to happiness by practicing moral values and compassion for all Mankind.

We all live in the protection of certain cowardices which we call our principles. —- Mark Twain

When our actions are not congruent with our own beliefs, we take refuge under the hood of our principles to justify our act of cowardice. If we avoid expressing our views of fairness and justice for any just cause that we feel deeply about, if we ignore our own inner voice to bring about the change that can transform our world for the better — we are doomed to forever fail to do what’s right . We use this word ‘principle’ at work and at home to avoid engaging ourselves in those actions that jeopardize our imaginary sense of security.

All of us have formed a stonewall of theories to justify our mental views of other people. When we don’t like something and when we struggle to rationalize our dislike, we wrap ourselves in the comfortable, secure blanket called ‘our principles‘. How can we grow ourselves if we are not truthful to our own inner-self? How can we make our world a better place to live if we wrap our views in a colorful yet fake stereotype formed on baseless reasoning? Try to abandon those fake theories that you have formed and embrace awareness by witnessing every thought that guides your every action. You’ll be amazed at the power of clarity that you will feel when you devote your life to bring about a profound change.

You cannot have a theory without principles. Principles is another name for prejudices. —— Mark Twain

All of us have formed a stonewall of theories to justify our mental views of other people. When we don’t like something and when we struggle to rationalize our dislike, we wrap ourselves in the comfortable, secure blanket called ‘our principles‘. How can we grow ourselves if we are not truthful to our own inner-self? How can we make our world a better place to live if we wrap our views in a colorful yet fake stereotype formed on baseless reasoning? Try to abandon those fake theories that you have formed and embrace awareness by witnessing every thought that guides your every action. You’ll be amazed at the power of clarity that you will feel when you devote your life to bring about a profound change.

Happy is he who forgets (ignores?) what cannot be changed. —- Mark Twain

The perfection of wisdom, and the end of true philosophy is to proportion our wants to our possessions, our ambitions to our capacities, we will then be a happy and a virtuous people. —- Mark Twain

Happiness is a Swedish sunset–it is there for all, but most of us look the other way and lose it. —- Mark Twain

Gotta love good ole' Sam Clemens. Read more at SuccessSoul

Zen and Relationships

"If he comes we welcome,

If he goes we do not pursue"

Zen saying

We all want love. We are all searching for some lasting relationship. Yet it always seems as if relationships are difficult, difficult to find, to keep and to enjoy. Though many do all they can, problems, complications and disappointment arise.

But from the Zen point of view, struggling to find and keep love is the opposite of what is needed. First we must learn 'do nothing'. We must learn how to let go of control.

Rena started Zen practice after losing two important relationships. Devastated, she was convinced she could never hold onto love.

She told the Zen Master, "I can't bear losing even one more person."

"You will lose many," the Zen Master said.

Rena gasped.

"Inevitable."

"What can I do about it?" Rena shot back.

"Do nothing,: the Zen Master said.

This 'do nothing' is active and vital, the very opposite of passivity. In order to understand this, we must take a step back.

We are born wanting to control our world and the people in it. We scream to get food from mother, smile to receive the attention we crave and, when our needs aren't met kick up a great fuss. As infants we feel that others are here simply to care for us and keep us content. This kind of attitude can be very hard to outgrow. In fact, it can be said that 99% of our precious life energy goes into controlling others so that our desires can be fulfilled.

What we call love in relationships is often no more than having someone who makes us feel good.

The Zen way is the opposite. We do not try to use others, control events, or demand that life fulfill our dreams. Instead, we grow aware of and accepting of all that is given, and learn to take care of the world we live in. As we do this, an odd thing happens, we become more and more fulfilled. As we grow in compassion and simplicity, all we truly need then comes naturally.

Doing Nothing

The only real miracle is to stand still. -Henry Miller

Unfortunately, the idea of 'doing nothing' has been greatly misunderstood. It does not mean be passive. Just the opposite. Do nothing is the most challenging, demanding, revolutionary instruction that can be given. It means, when faced with life's challenges - let go of control.
...
When you are faced with a difficult knot in a relationship, or when you are trying to find someone new to love - don't squirm and wrestle, don't enter into a struggle. "Do nothing" give up control. Stay centered and immovable in the middle of the storm and see what the life is truly bringing to you. Keep clear and compassionate. Let the situation unfold as it will. Don't get picked up and whirled around like a leaf in the wind.

Read more at ezine articles.