Based on the 6 foundations that form Haidt’s arguments regarding the division between the Conservatives or the ( Republicans ) and Liberals/Progressives or Democrats, one must ask him/herself how is this idea possible. The six foundations that Haidt argues concerning the manner in which they divide Republicans and Democrats, it is clear that people differ because of the ideas they hold against or for one another. However, according to Haidt’s influential moral and social psychologists will have their views regarding some of the issues and arguments put forth. One of the ideas that Haidt uses in explaining the reasoning behind the division between the liberals and conservatives is that he thinks openly and is alive to new experiences (Haidt, 2013). This paper seeks to explain how the division between the two groups, conservatives and liberals arise in the context of political alignments based on the six foundations.
To begin, it is noteworthy that all the divisions are created in the human mind and augmented through the political elites. However, the division that is very apparent is that political affiliations have bedeviled many societies over the years and America’s is a very good example. All these indicators and those that may seem innocuous also track well with a number of political affiliations. However, reading through Haidt’s ideology in his book, “The Righteous Mind,” clearly show that most politicians focus on the first five moral foundations (Haidt, 2013). As many will agree, liberals are in most instances are usually open to emergent ideologies and very often than not propose the need for change. They very often look towards the significance of change and the goodies that may accompany the change (Haidt, 2013). For example, people may not know that they are driven by a concern for care, but their answers to numerous queries may cluster together empirically, and “care” may be a good label for this cluster .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conversely, conservatives usually are afraid of the change and the likely consequences that change may bring. They believe that change is always destined to ruin what was initially good. The conservatives tend to fight and ensure that the proposed change does not take place. Such beliefs usually resonate well with age since young people will promote change while the elderly will always feel that change will ruin something and that’s why old people are usually aligned to the conservative side. Besides that, Haidt also offers numerous examples that help explain why people hold certain beliefs. One such instance is when he explains about a person eating a dog. He indicates that morality or moral judgment can affect a person’s culture and he relates it to the idea on eating one’s dog and he asks whether or not it is right or wrong to eat your dog. He further indicates that human beings are never good at thinking open-mindedly concerning moral issues. According to Haidt, our moral intuition also determine our moral judgement and he offers an example and says, “It can never be right to kill a human being,” for Harm and offers another statement on government policies, “The government should strive to improve the lives of its people even if it is on the expense of other people in a different nation.”
Secondly, while doing his research, Haidt must have thought if there was a way in which each sides of the political divide view morality. To further understand this notion, he was interested mostly in carrying out an experiment that determined the differences between these two groups. He achieved this through posting a questionnaire online that asked questions associated with the main five foundations of moral values. He asked regarding one’s openness to emergent experiences, whether or not they determined a person’s liberal or conservative slant (Haidt, 2013). The outcome from thousands of respondents showed that people in various countries provided clear position regarding their divergent views based on the foundations of morality. The results showed that Liberals valued Harm/Care high, then Fairness/Reciprocity then a big drop to Authority/Respect and In-group/Loyalty, then least Purity/Sanctity (Haidt, 2013). In fact, looking at the views held by the conservatives, it became apparent that they treasure – Harm/Care lower than liberals but place it at the top of their lists as well. Conservatives put Authority at the second position and the closely followed by In-group/Loyalty, and Purity/Sanctity, with Fairness/Reciprocity closing the list (Haidt, 2013). For example, in explaining authority when it comes to the moral foundations, Haidt offers an example of a solder, he notes, “If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commander, I would still obey anyway because that is my duty for authority.”
As I read through Haidt’s piece and as I view other presentations, I discover the way that Fairness/Reciprocity. It appears to be to some degree natural yet this examination measures the relationship between the two divergent groups based on their moral foundations. That implies that they basically concentrate on “the mission” and does not care about the good of others. It is along these lines, which the findings bodes well that Fairness/Reciprocity would be positioned least since Fairness/Reciprocity has a tendency to impede the mission (Haidt, 2013). An image that a man or a group holds precious, a consecrated esteem, can have adept. This authority can be utilized to make great individuals do awful things. That is an unevenness that ought to be of worry to everybody. For example, o n the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality.
It is noteworthy that Jonathan Haidt contemplates the five good esteems that frame the premise of our political decisions, regardless of whether we are left, right, or focus or not. In most of his lectures and presentations, he pinpoints the ethical esteems that liberals and traditionalists tend to respect most. Haidt thinks about how and why we became to be moral without embracing the demands that accompany moral acts and behaviors. By seeing more about our ethical roots, his expectation is that we can figure out how to be thoughtful and liberal. These ethical frameworks are barely uninformed or in reverse (Haidt, 2013). Haidt contends that they are mostly found in the historical accounts and over the globe since they fit human instinct. He thinks about them to cooking styles. We get ethical quality a similar way we secure sustenance inclinations: we begin with what we have been offered (Rossiter, 2006). In the event that it tastes great, we stay with it. In the event that it tastes bad, one may not accept it. This is probably why individuals acknowledge God, authority, and karma on the grounds that these thoughts suit their ethical taste buds. Another example is when Haidt indicates that sometimes the Democrats may agree with the Republicans and it is similar to the elephant riders who sometimes talk to each other. He further explains that for instance, liberals may have realized that they have to face up to the free rider’ problems of welfare dependency while some conservative may as well appreciate the need for equality in the context of extreme inequality. In this instance, Haidt offers an example that explains how religious conservatives also adhere to their numerous beliefs based on the authority from above. Haidt offers further an example of what Unitarians believed with regard to war. He indicates that for instance, “Most of the 78 instances in which Unitarians said “war” referred to the current war in Iraq, whereas the 18 Baptist uses of “war” never once referred to the Iraq war, instead tending to describe a theological war between heaven and hell.”
Based on these accounts, it is evident that political alignments or views are forever multifaceted, but the six moral foundations explain the manner in which these two groups always part ways. It is also clear that liberals have always shown some sense of optimism and that’s why they emphasize change and remain optimistic. Conservatives are always pessimists and always thrive in thinking about the likely consequences of the proposed change. Although the moral foundation theory attempts to minimize the panoply of value, it searches for the best links between the evolutionary accounts of morality and the anthropological aspect of the same. This is why Haidt believes that liberals speak for the weak and risk always for chaos in the society while conservatives speak for traditions and institutions and they want order even if it means that it will most likely cost those at the bottom of the ladder. To this end, and to understand the ideas by Haidt and how they contribute to the division in political arena; one must understand the idea behind being for and against. We must understand who we are and who they are, as well as their reasoning behind their actions as it will help us understand the aspect of moral humility in changing the world.
References
Haidt, J. (2013). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion . New York: Vintage Books.
Rossiter, L. H. (2006). The liberal mind: The psychological causes of political madness . Saint Charles, IL: Free World Books.
