Michael Shermer's Five Moral Dimensions
So, Ziztur and I had an awesome time at TAM7. Discussing the lectures afterwards, we had to admit that there wasn't a great deal of new information there - most topics that were discussed were old news to us. I suppose that's to be expected, considering the two of us have drowned ourselves in everything skeptical, rational, and godless for years now.
Surprisingly, the most interesting lecture, to me, was Michael Shermer talking about Libertarianism, and that was precisely because I disagreed with him more than any other speaker!
*Disclaimer: It's now been a couple weeks since I heard the lecture, and I didn't anticipate wishing, in retrospect, that I had taken notes. I'll leave obvious disclaimers here and there when I don't remember something, some things I've looked up online to ensure their accuracy, but some things might be mistaken. If that's the case, don't hesitate to let me know!
The opening of Shermer's talk sounded straight-forward enough; he said that "skepticism" in general is or should be an apolitical movement. He said that sometimes "skeptics" or "rationalists" can have a tendency to identity atheism/skepticism/rationalism/etc. with modern liberal political ideology. He cautions us that devoted skeptics and critical thinkers have a wide variety of political bents.
All this is true, so far as it goes. It seems to me that "skeptics" do not necessarily entail a specific political ideology for the same reason that being "skeptical" doesn't necessarily entail any other specific demographic. Skeptics tend to be politically liberal rather than libertarian, and far, far more likely to be either of these than politically conservative. In the same way, skeptics and rationalists tend to be atheist or agnostic rather than a member of an organized religion. However, this does not mean that there are no conservative skeptics, and it's entirely possible for a skeptic to be a theist as well. This is because every human being is skeptical of some things - skepticism is not a rigid, defined category, it is a spectrum, with some people being more skeptical than others.
Of course, this is all well and good, but as I mentioned, there is a very obvious correlation between self-proclaimed skeptics and liberalism, just as there is a nigh-overwhelming correlation between skeptics and atheism/agnosticism. So Shermer rapidly moved on from the above heart-warming message about us all just getting along, into a defense of libertarian ideology.
There were a number of papers he referenced, which I have hunted for but have been unable to find. One such point was a study of different papers claiming that there have been zero wars between liberal democracies for some considerable period of time. Without access to the original research or the criteria used to categorize the nations in question (and Shermer even mentioned that some of these criteria were a bit questionable) I can't really comment on this seemingly significant claim. All I will say is that there were just over 200 wars during this period between non-democratic countries, and almost 170 wars between one or more non-democratic countries and democratic countries, which makes me question the criteria used. Also, I would find this point much more persuasive if those wars between democratic and non-democratic countries were overwhelmingly instigated by the non-democratic countries, which is not the case. Of course, this also assumes as an unstated premise that a liberal democracy must by definition be a strictly capitalist culture, with no socialist policy at all, which is completely untrue.
The focal point of Shermer's talk, to my mind, is his discussion of the Five Moral Dimensions, a very interesting bit of research into the ethics of human cultures and individuals, which is being headed by Jonathan Haidt. You can read about these moral dimensions that he proposes here, and can even contribute to his research and get a table of your own ethical layout (among other question-and-answer studies) according to this research here. The table you receive shows how you prioritize your own ethical principles, alongside the results of those who identify as liberal, and those who identify as conservative. Here are those results, along with my own (mine are in green, liberal results in blue, conservative results in red):
Here's a brief description of the Five Moral Dimensions:
1. Harm/Care - Ethical foundations concerning compassion and security.
2. Fairness/Reciprocity - concerning justice and human rights.
3. Ingroup/Loyalty - concerning patriotism and loyalty to a group.
4. Authority/Respect - concerning social and cultural hierarchies, and tradition.
5. Purity/Sanctity - concerning resistance to cultural immorality and/or physical contamination.
In a nutshell, those who self-identify as liberal place far more emphasis on the first two moral dimensions, significantly downplaying the latter three, while conservatives largely weight each of the five dimensions relatively equally.
Here's where I think Shermer went wrong. If one wishes to defend libertarianism, I think the best way to go about it is to make a case that the first two moral dimensions provide all the foundation you need to build libertarianism from, using reason and critical thinking. The implications of this research is that a libertarian ideology does take some fuel from the latter three dimensions. If that's the case, then Shermer has considerably weakened his argument for libertarianism - frankly, the latter three dimensions are completely irrational as foundations for morality.
Shermer attempts to drive home his point in, in my opinion, a pretty pathetic way. He shows a slide - a picture of the Twin
Towers, in flames, about to collapse. Below the towers is a question: "Can we really afford to abandon tradition and patriotism?"
Um, yes. We can. Let's think about this. The clear implication of this emotionally-charged question is that we need, we require the third, fourth, or fifth moral dimensions to condemn the actions of fundamentalist terrorists. Really? Take a good look at the first and second moral dimensions - does Shermer really think that we cannot possibly condemn violent religious extremism based on these first two (most espescially the second)?
As for why the first two moral dimensions are rational foundations for ethics and the latter three are not, well, isn't that obvious? Imagine a society that governed itself entirely through the first two. There will obviously still be disagreements, but it is quite possible for a just society to draw it's cultural ethic from these first two entirely. Simply put, the first and second moral dimensions do not require the third, fourth, and fifth. Now, imagine the reverse. Pretty obvious, isn't it? I hate to pull such a predictible example, but yeah, screw it, I'm throwing down the Nazi card. A society that bases it's cultural morality on only the third, fourth, and fifth dimensions would be horrifying. It seems obvious to me - whereas the first and second dimensions don't require the latter three in any way, the latter three absolutely require the first and second to be present as well.
Think of all the greatest ethical cock-ups in human history; the ancient Hebrew war crimes, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, all the various genocides of native peoples in the Americas and Africa. Can anyone credibly argue that these atrocities resulted from applications of the first or second moral dimensions? Or were they all painfully obviously the result of the latter three being more powerful than the first two, in the cultures in question?
As I said, if you've concluded that libertarianism does have a rational foundation in the first two ethical principles alone, then I might disagree, but that would at least be a rational foundation for the ideology. Michael Shermer certainly seemed to be claiming that libertarianism is based, at least in part, on all five moral dimensions to some extent or another, and that this basis is rational. It seems clear to me that a political ideology that is derived from authority, ingroup loyalty, and/or a concern for what is "sacred" and "pure," then such an ideology is completely irrational.
Surprisingly, the most interesting lecture, to me, was Michael Shermer talking about Libertarianism, and that was precisely because I disagreed with him more than any other speaker!
*Disclaimer: It's now been a couple weeks since I heard the lecture, and I didn't anticipate wishing, in retrospect, that I had taken notes. I'll leave obvious disclaimers here and there when I don't remember something, some things I've looked up online to ensure their accuracy, but some things might be mistaken. If that's the case, don't hesitate to let me know!
The opening of Shermer's talk sounded straight-forward enough; he said that "skepticism" in general is or should be an apolitical movement. He said that sometimes "skeptics" or "rationalists" can have a tendency to identity atheism/skepticism/rationalism/etc. with modern liberal political ideology. He cautions us that devoted skeptics and critical thinkers have a wide variety of political bents.
All this is true, so far as it goes. It seems to me that "skeptics" do not necessarily entail a specific political ideology for the same reason that being "skeptical" doesn't necessarily entail any other specific demographic. Skeptics tend to be politically liberal rather than libertarian, and far, far more likely to be either of these than politically conservative. In the same way, skeptics and rationalists tend to be atheist or agnostic rather than a member of an organized religion. However, this does not mean that there are no conservative skeptics, and it's entirely possible for a skeptic to be a theist as well. This is because every human being is skeptical of some things - skepticism is not a rigid, defined category, it is a spectrum, with some people being more skeptical than others.
Of course, this is all well and good, but as I mentioned, there is a very obvious correlation between self-proclaimed skeptics and liberalism, just as there is a nigh-overwhelming correlation between skeptics and atheism/agnosticism. So Shermer rapidly moved on from the above heart-warming message about us all just getting along, into a defense of libertarian ideology.
There were a number of papers he referenced, which I have hunted for but have been unable to find. One such point was a study of different papers claiming that there have been zero wars between liberal democracies for some considerable period of time. Without access to the original research or the criteria used to categorize the nations in question (and Shermer even mentioned that some of these criteria were a bit questionable) I can't really comment on this seemingly significant claim. All I will say is that there were just over 200 wars during this period between non-democratic countries, and almost 170 wars between one or more non-democratic countries and democratic countries, which makes me question the criteria used. Also, I would find this point much more persuasive if those wars between democratic and non-democratic countries were overwhelmingly instigated by the non-democratic countries, which is not the case. Of course, this also assumes as an unstated premise that a liberal democracy must by definition be a strictly capitalist culture, with no socialist policy at all, which is completely untrue.
The focal point of Shermer's talk, to my mind, is his discussion of the Five Moral Dimensions, a very interesting bit of research into the ethics of human cultures and individuals, which is being headed by Jonathan Haidt. You can read about these moral dimensions that he proposes here, and can even contribute to his research and get a table of your own ethical layout (among other question-and-answer studies) according to this research here. The table you receive shows how you prioritize your own ethical principles, alongside the results of those who identify as liberal, and those who identify as conservative. Here are those results, along with my own (mine are in green, liberal results in blue, conservative results in red):
1. Harm/Care - Ethical foundations concerning compassion and security.
2. Fairness/Reciprocity - concerning justice and human rights.
3. Ingroup/Loyalty - concerning patriotism and loyalty to a group.
4. Authority/Respect - concerning social and cultural hierarchies, and tradition.
5. Purity/Sanctity - concerning resistance to cultural immorality and/or physical contamination.
In a nutshell, those who self-identify as liberal place far more emphasis on the first two moral dimensions, significantly downplaying the latter three, while conservatives largely weight each of the five dimensions relatively equally.
Here's where I think Shermer went wrong. If one wishes to defend libertarianism, I think the best way to go about it is to make a case that the first two moral dimensions provide all the foundation you need to build libertarianism from, using reason and critical thinking. The implications of this research is that a libertarian ideology does take some fuel from the latter three dimensions. If that's the case, then Shermer has considerably weakened his argument for libertarianism - frankly, the latter three dimensions are completely irrational as foundations for morality.
Shermer attempts to drive home his point in, in my opinion, a pretty pathetic way. He shows a slide - a picture of the Twin
Towers, in flames, about to collapse. Below the towers is a question: "Can we really afford to abandon tradition and patriotism?"
Um, yes. We can. Let's think about this. The clear implication of this emotionally-charged question is that we need, we require the third, fourth, or fifth moral dimensions to condemn the actions of fundamentalist terrorists. Really? Take a good look at the first and second moral dimensions - does Shermer really think that we cannot possibly condemn violent religious extremism based on these first two (most espescially the second)?
As for why the first two moral dimensions are rational foundations for ethics and the latter three are not, well, isn't that obvious? Imagine a society that governed itself entirely through the first two. There will obviously still be disagreements, but it is quite possible for a just society to draw it's cultural ethic from these first two entirely. Simply put, the first and second moral dimensions do not require the third, fourth, and fifth. Now, imagine the reverse. Pretty obvious, isn't it? I hate to pull such a predictible example, but yeah, screw it, I'm throwing down the Nazi card. A society that bases it's cultural morality on only the third, fourth, and fifth dimensions would be horrifying. It seems obvious to me - whereas the first and second dimensions don't require the latter three in any way, the latter three absolutely require the first and second to be present as well.
Think of all the greatest ethical cock-ups in human history; the ancient Hebrew war crimes, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, all the various genocides of native peoples in the Americas and Africa. Can anyone credibly argue that these atrocities resulted from applications of the first or second moral dimensions? Or were they all painfully obviously the result of the latter three being more powerful than the first two, in the cultures in question?
As I said, if you've concluded that libertarianism does have a rational foundation in the first two ethical principles alone, then I might disagree, but that would at least be a rational foundation for the ideology. Michael Shermer certainly seemed to be claiming that libertarianism is based, at least in part, on all five moral dimensions to some extent or another, and that this basis is rational. It seems clear to me that a political ideology that is derived from authority, ingroup loyalty, and/or a concern for what is "sacred" and "pure," then such an ideology is completely irrational.
posted by Flimsyman
at
8:00 AM
10 Comments:
I completely agree that the first two moral dimensions are the most important. I might even go so far as to say that if you have enough of the second, you don't need any of the others for a stable society, not even the first. My results mostly matched Flimsy's, though apparently slightly more balanced (1.8/4.3/0.7/0.8/0.7), but that's probably only because I make few absolute moral judgements in general, so I leaned more towards the middle of the scale on many questions than Flimsy did.
I am (as anybody who's been paying attention knows) a skeptic, and I am also largely a libertarian, at least as libertarianism is actually defined - I don't necessarily have a lot in common with most other people who call themselves libertarian. More on that in a bit.
That test seems to indicate that Flimsy and I have largely the same moral compass, so either the test is flawed (it doesn't even make any mention of my most important value - freedom), or libertarianism doesn't necessarily have as much of a moral component as suggested, or Flimsy and Shermer are using the "like Republicans, but slightly less stupid" definition of libertarianism while I'm using the "like anarchists, but slightly less stupid" definition. Which could be to say, the difference between Libertarianism and libertarianism. Again, more on that later.
For my part, if you want to get more specific, I would describe myself as a civil libertarian, economic agnostic. I think civil liberties - which is to say, freedom, the very basis of my morality - are the most important thing in society. And the more I read about economics, the more I'm convinced that nobody has any idea what they're doing, and as long as the government doesn't stray too far in either direction, the economy largely is largely unaffected by government policy.
So, given a.) my position on civil liberties is that the government, as the current largest infringer upon civil liberties, should go curl up in a corner and die (except to the extent that it needs to remain to prevent private citizens from infringing upon the liberties of other private citizens), and b.) my position on economics is that it doesn't matter what the government does, I figure c.) I might as well be consistent and say government should just curl up and die in general, for the sake of simplicity if somebody wants a broad overview rather than the nuanced particulars.
Where I disagree with other libertarians is that they seem to find economic freedom much more important than personal freedom, which is precisely backwards as far as I'm concerned. So I technically agree with them in principle, but I strongly disagree with their emphasis.
And don't even get me started on the Libertarian Party. While I am a member, because I technically agree with their stated principles better than those of all the other parties, at the moment they seem to largely consist of Republicans who, witnessing the death throes of the Republican party, want it to be born anew with a different name. So, in practice, at least in the post-Bush era, Libertarian candidates often have more in common with fascists than with genuine libertarians, Bob Barr being the most egregious example.
Ingroup, Authority and Tradition seem amoral to me rather than moral or immoral, why are they part of pillers of morality?
Ing: Because they are the foundation upon which religion is built. Believing whatever your parents tell you, obeying your priests, respecting religious tradition, not allowing your beliefs to be tarnished, belief that your religion is the only source of moral guidance, these are traits that all the most virulent religious meme-complexes instill in their victims, and is vital to their success as such.
Therefore, anybody infected with religion is liable to hold dimensions 3 through 5 to be fundamental to morality, and because victims of religion are the majority in this society, they get to dictate a fair slice of the moral pie chart.
Yes but it's pious perhaps but not moral. I question why Shermer as someone who naturally isn't a fan of religion would list those as "moral" points.
I got 2.7, 3.2, 3.2, 2.8, 0.2, which is pretty much what I would have expected. However I would probably justify loyalty and authority by their benefits in terms of the first two moral dimensions. Like Ing, I'm not sure what some of the concerns about purity and tradition have to do with morality; however important they are, they don't have much to do with benefitting humanity, and so are not moral concerns.
One thing to bear in mind is that the 5 dimensions (or moral foundations) are meant to be descriptive: they are what the research found to be a way to describe the way people actual make moral decisions, not how they should
make moral decisions (normative ethics). Filmsyman, is going a bit further and proposing that the Harm and Fairness dimensions SHOULD be the basis of a moral system. I don't disagree, but it is important to know that other people have these other considerations otherwise it is easy to 'talk past each other'. The example that is often used is the argument about Gay marriage. It is obvious that banning gay marriage is harmful and is unfair. So, to me the decision that we should allow gay marriage should be a no-brainer. However, to a person that values tradition and (perhaps) purity as much as they value fairness, the opposition becomes more understandable.
WRT the idea of freedom as a moral dimension, I suspect that it is subsumed under the dimension of fairness. Or, perhaps, it is more of a Meta-consideration. Since most moral decisions are about restrictions on personnel actions, the moral calculation is on when is it correct to limit freedom - thus it isn't really a dimension of the factors that influence that calculation.
It is exactly as jdhuey says: Shermer's system is descriptive, not prescriptive. He's saying "This is what people in general think of as moral", not "This is what I think of as moral". The distinction is vital.
And yes, freedom overlaps somewhat with dimensions 1 (freedom leads to health/happiness/safety, and health/happiness/safety lead to freedom, to a certain extent) and 2 (it does no good for one person to be free if everyone isn't free), and for that matter overlaps somewhat with the opposite or lack of 3 through 5.
It's just again a question of emphasis. I assume Shermer's research has freedom lumped in under harm/care, because an unfree person tends to be less happy than a free person. Personally, I would lump in harm/care under freedom, because a person who is unhappy tends to be less free than a happy person. I can see how I wouldn't necessarily be in the majority on that point, though, and again, Shermer's system is descriptive, not prescriptive.
Freedom is definitely different enough to be considered as an extra moral dimension, especially in a test which is comparing liberals with conservatives, since personal freedom is the basis of a lot of conservative/libertarian economic policy and some liberal social policy. Reducing harm and ensuring fairness often involve restricting freedom, so it can't be merged with one of those two.
Flimsy:
Haidt Video
Right - many people who will likely read a blog like this one are quite likely to completely discard "purity" as a moral dimension. Obviously, I agree, I think that it's a downright stupid moral principle (as it's presented in this research). A whole lot of people disagree, though. These five moral dimensions just describe how people do, in fact, structure their morality; it says nothing, in and of itself, about whether those principles are rational.
Yeah, at first it seemed like Shermer was simply describing this research, but like I said, at one point he put that slide up, obviously stating that we can not afford to "give up" the third, fourth, and fifth moral dimensions. From there, he launched into a series of factoids that supposedly supported libertarianism. That's my question for him - he does present this information as prescriptive.
About "freedom" as a distinct moral principle, I would assume that it falls under the category of "fairness/justice." Human rights are one such concept that are placed in this category. I think of it this way: Is it accurate to say that a person whose rights are being infringed upon is "being treated unfairly"?
Marc_Newcomb, I'd be interested to hear what kind of situation you would consider to be a case of "ensuring fairness" causing freedom to be "restricted."
I might even go so far as to say that "care" or reducing harm is an aspect of fairness/justice itself.
In any event, I think it's important to maintain a very clear, precise definition of the various ideologies in question. I would nitpick your statement, Marc. The central idea of conservative economics is indeed "freedom" (I might dispute the "personal" part, as conservative economic policy claims that this principle applies to organizations and businesses as much as individuals), and freedom is similarly the entire point of liberal social policy.
Of course, this seems to imply that conservatives on social issues, or liberals on economic issues, consider "freedom" to be irrelevant. On the contrary, I'm sure a conservative could re-state his or her social policy as, "Human beings have a right to live in a society wherein marriage is only recognized as between one man and one woman." Or even more accurately, "Human beings have less of a right to legally marry those of the same sex than they do to live in a society formed of one-man, one-woman marriage." Obviously, I think that this is completely stupid, but you see my point.
Similarly, I might describe my opinion on economic policy as, "Presuming that a society has sufficient resources to provide a basic standard of living for all it's people, those people have more of a right to this security than they do to retain any degree of wealth that they are able to acquire." Of course, actual policy is far more detailed than that; there's more to the issue when it comes to the estate tax or capital gains taxes, but you probably get what I mean.
I'll refrain from comment on the government curling up in a corner and dying, as my rant is stupid-long already. ;)
Post a Comment
I will never delete a comment because I disagree with you, but if you're posting anonymously, at least give us a name so that if you make multiple comments we can tell you apart from the other anonymous people.
<< Home