The "Moral Matrix"

[Kev H]

This is an interesting speech by a moral psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, who attempts to explain our predispositions and how they lead to divisions like liberal versus conservative values (conservatives, please stick it out to the end--he's talking to mostly liberals, so some things he says may seem slanted, but there's a method to this that doesn't become clear until near the end).

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Many fascinating points were shoved into this speech, sometimes only mentioned for five seconds, and I'd really like to see a discussion on many of these. If you want to discuss a specify part, please reference it (even quote it for easy reference), so others can see what you are talking about.

I have tons of editing to do, but I'd like to begin with more insight into a hot topic that's been bothering me: abortion. This may not seem like it's related to his speech until you get to 4:40 into the speech where he says, "Let's start at the beginning. What is morality and where does it come from?" He goes on to state that the "blank slate" idea for newborns is the worst idea to come along, and he reveals modern research that shows (proves?) that at the earliest measurable stages of life, we have innate abilities to know and judge morality on a basic scale. Much of this is even shared with the (lower) animal kingdom. To paraphrase him, "newborns come into the world already knowing so much about their physical and social roles, and programming to make certain things easier or more difficult to learn." He quotes a researcher, Marcus, who talks about the "first draft" of the moral mind. "The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience...Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises...'Built-in' does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience."

This research comes from scientists, not religious nuts with some faith to sell you. This marvelous potential does not just magically appear when the newborn breathes air for the first time, or is spanked on the bottom by the doctor; this potential develops from the first spark, when a good-for-nothing-by-itself sperm meets a good-for-nothing-by-itself egg, and cells begin to divide tasks and develop things like a nervous system. It bothers me to think this process isn't happening from the very beginning, that it doesn't take all nine months to happen. It makes me wonder how we can claim a fetus has any less potential than a newborn, and is any less magical and precious. This thinking simply is not worth the risk of being wrong.

Am I overreacting and suggesting we should forcefully try to abolish all abortions? Of course not. But we should educated children with the latest research so that by the time they have any choice, they can make the right one. Pro-choice thinking should go something like this: "I have the choice whether or not to have sex; I have the choice whether or not to have unprotected sex; I have the choice to be responsible or not for the life growing inside of me, by either keeping or giving the child up for adoption; but there is no morally right choice in terminating a pregnancy, this magical life with all its potential." IMO, this should be societal-wide reasoning, independent of religious or government intervention (but I know that's the ideal, not the reality). In cases of rape or the mother's impending death, the sacrifice should be made with full knowledge (yes, it's a tough choice; one that hopefully can be supported by friends and family to help ease that burden).

No vile responses here, please--this is not intended to be an us-versus-them spitting match--and I'd also like to hear your thoughts on any of the other topics covered in the speech. Let's have a positive discussion, where thoughtful responses rule over ignorant knee-jerks.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't have time to read the article right now, but I agree with you on the abortion issue. I'm really conflicted over this (so I tend to toss to the back of my mind only to be brought out if it challenges me directly). Intellectually I'm very much with the choice positions, but emotionally I can't escape that I fundamentally believe that a fetus is a person from sometime very early in the process there. And as much "choice" as I would like to be, there are times when I'd like to take the Octamoms of the world and fuse their thighs together so that their choice doesn't impign on my choices and so that that their offspring don't arrive terribly disadvantaged from the get go. I don't pretend I have answers on this issue that would make me comfortable.

 

[Recidiva]

I understand and respect your stand on abortion.

The question for me is not whether or not someone will make you have an abortion, which would be a different set of logical circumstances.

I've been through two pregnancies. Knowing how entirely transformative the event is, and how completely different you become and your priorities, responsibilities and attitudes change during pregnancy and delivery, there's no way I'd make someone go through it any more than I'd force someone to go through gender reassignment surgery. It's that transformative.

Medically for me it's about the risks and changes the mother takes upon herself. Men and women are graced with a supply of eggs and sperm with which to give life another try in the future if they so choose.

If you are aware of the changes pregnancy takes and the risks it presents, historically being one of the main causes for taking female lives in the past, and still carrying enough serious risk to give anyone considering it medical pause, there's a medical real reason to present abortion as a responsible medical option.

When a woman becomes pregnant, she's the person whose rights concern me.

 

[john-the-author]

This is an interesting speech by a moral psychologist, Jonathan Haidt, who attempts to explain our predispositions and how they lead to divisions like liberal versus conservative values (conservatives, please stick it out to the end--he's talking to mostly liberals, so some things he says may seem slanted, but there's a method to this that doesn't become clear until near the end).

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

Many fascinating points were shoved into this speech, sometimes only mentioned for five seconds, and I'd really like to see a discussion on many of these. If you want to discuss a specify part, please reference it (even quote it for easy reference), so others can see what you are talking about.

I have tons of editing to do, but I'd like to begin with more insight into a hot topic that's been bothering me: abortion. This may not seem like it's related to his speech until you get to 4:40 into the speech where he says, "Let's start at the beginning. What is morality and where does it come from?" He goes on to state that the "blank slate" idea for newborns is the worst idea to come along, and he reveals modern research that shows (proves?) that at the earliest measurable stages of life, we have innate abilities to know and judge morality on a basic scale. Much of this is even shared with the (lower) animal kingdom. To paraphrase him, "newborns come into the world already knowing so much about their physical and social roles, and programming to make certain things easier or more difficult to learn." He quotes a researcher, Marcus, who talks about the "first draft" of the moral mind. "The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience...Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises...'Built-in' does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience."

This research comes from scientists, not religious nuts with some faith to sell you. This marvelous potential does not just magically appear when the newborn breathes air for the first time, or is spanked on the bottom by the doctor; this potential develops from the first spark, when a good-for-nothing-by-itself sperm meets a good-for-nothing-by-itself egg, and cells begin to divide tasks and develop things like a nervous system. It bothers me to think this process isn't happening from the very beginning, that it doesn't take all nine months to happen. It makes me wonder how we can claim a fetus has any less potential than a newborn, and is any less magical and precious. This thinking simply is not worth the risk of being wrong.

Am I overreacting and suggesting we should forcefully try to abolish all abortions? Of course not. But we should educated children with the latest research so that by the time they have any choice, they can make the right one. Pro-choice thinking should go something like this: "I have the choice whether or not to have sex; I have the choice whether or not to have unprotected sex; I have the choice to be responsible or not for the life growing inside of me, by either keeping or giving the child up for adoption; but there is no morally right choice in terminating a pregnancy, this magical life with all its potential." IMO, this should be societal-wide reasoning, independent of religious or government intervention (but I know that's the ideal, not the reality). In cases of rape or the mother's impending death, the sacrifice should be made with full knowledge (yes, it's a tough choice; one that hopefully can be supported by friends and family to help ease that burden).

No vile responses here, please--this is not intended to be an us-versus-them spitting match--and I'd also like to hear your thoughts on any of the other topics covered in the speech. Let's have a positive discussion, where thoughtful responses rule over ignorant knee-jerks.

The idea that the... hardware and firmware, if you like, control a lot of the thinking is not a hard one to accept. I agree that we need to have a lot more education on the concepts of sex education and birth control so that people can make better choices. They're going to have sex, we know that, so we might as well make it safer for them to do so and prevent unwanted pregnancies.

 

[impressive]

Life is life -- from insect to human. Killing one form is no different than killing another, and it is pure hubris to insist otherwise. Thus, my unwavering support of the ability to choose abortion is not about whether or not the fetus, at whatever stage of development, is "alive" or "sentient" but whether or not another human being can be forced to host such life against their will.

To place all the emphasis on valuing life is hypocritical when we kill other of our species as well as other creatures in a wide variety of creative and often socially sanctioned ways.

The debate (to me) is not about life. It's about control.

 

[sr71plt]

Life is life -- from insect to human. Killing one form is no different than killing another, and it is pure hubris to insist otherwise. Thus, my unwavering support of the ability to choose abortion is not about whether or not the fetus, at whatever stage of development, is "alive" or "sentient" but whether or not another human being can be forced to host such life against their will.

To place all the emphasis on valuing life is hypocritical when we kill other of our species as well as other creatures in a wide variety of creative and often socially sanctioned ways.

The debate (to me) is not about life. It's about control.

Yes, I can see where that would be very comforting if one could believe it. I don't believe that the lives of all species are equal to that of human beings. Valued, yes. Equal, nope--can't believe that. I see a mosquito and it's going to be dead if I can manage that. And I have no remorse whatsoever. Much more remorse if I accidentally ran over and killed a cat. Overwhelming remorse if I was involved in the death of a child. I can't put these on equal footing, no matter how convenient that would make it for me on this issue.

 

[Stella_Omega]

*sigh*

yes, Kev, by the time a baby is birthed it has developed a brain that is structured to learn.

but-- ...he reveals modern research that shows (proves?) that at the earliest measurable stages of life, we have innate abilities to know and judge morality on a basic scale.

I cannot watch a video at work-- what research does he reveal, what are the papers he cites, what field was this research based in?

 

[WRJames]

I assume he or the researchers were not interviewing fetuses in the womb to find their moral preferences.

There are all sort of absurd paradoxes if we try to assume that the instant of conception is the start of "human" existence. On the other hand, I personally feel that we are allowing abortions too late.

As for the rest of his talk -- as one who has always been notable lacking in respect for authority, patriotic fervor, any of those things -- back to my earliest childhood memories -- I would have to say that perhaps not all of us are born with the same balance of the five moral attributes. Maybe we have innate liberal and conservative tendencies. All I know that my enthusiasm for killing Commies for Christ was never very high. I thought Cub Scouts was an insufferable bore, and I never made it into the Boy Scouts. Even my members of kindergarten are that it was all a crock. I mention these early experiences because the reflect, if anything, what my innate moral tendencies might be.

So I would so say, from personal experience, that although we may have some these five moral traits ingrained in us, not all of us have them in equal measure. Probably, liberals represent a higher stage of moral evolution, where the more primitive, repressive moral preconditioning is fading away.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I assume he or the researchers were not interviewing fetuses in the womb to find their moral preferences.

They must have had some foundation for these conclusions...

I'm not going to get into it with you about how late is too late, though. SO not worth it.

 

[past_perfect]

I have tons of editing to do, but I'd like to begin with more insight into a hot topic that's been bothering me: abortion. This may not seem like it's related to his speech until you get to 4:40 into the speech where he says, "Let's start at the beginning. What is morality and where does it come from?" He goes on to state that the "blank slate" idea for newborns is the worst idea to come along, and he reveals modern research that shows (proves?) that at the earliest measurable stages of life, we have innate abilities to know and judge morality on a basic scale. Much of this is even shared with the (lower) animal kingdom. To paraphrase him, "newborns come into the world already knowing so much about their physical and social roles, and programming to make certain things easier or more difficult to learn." He quotes a researcher, Marcus, who talks about the "first draft" of the moral mind. "The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience...Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises...'Built-in' does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience."

Sorry, but this is not what science has found out, unless I have missed some groundbreaking new papers. There is brain matter, which has to be wired - the wiring occurs after the first experiences are accumulating - at least that is what neurology, clinical psychology and neurophysiology tell us. Moral decisions are actually so complex that they wouldn't occur before early childhood (2-3 years). Or in other words, unless you have the ability to process what is right and what is wrong (and understand the concept of duality to begin with) you can't possibly make a decision. Until about the end of the first year, there is not even the sense of "I", leave alone physical and social roles. So it wasn't a bad idea, as he stipulates, it is just the way it is, or at least the way mainstream science still defines it. "Nativism" - which he obviously subscribes to, is a fringe view, not the view of mainstream science.

 

[amicus]

No vile responses here, please--this is not intended to be an us-versus-them spitting match--and I'd also like to hear your thoughts on any of the other topics covered in the speech. Let's have a positive discussion, where thoughtful responses rule over ignorant knee-jerks.

Unfortunately that is precisely what is intended by the subject itself, 'us versus them'...

I say that because the current crop of progressive liberals seems convinced that 'conservatives', are lacking a moral gene which is why they stupidly resist the sanctimonious left wing liberal mantra.

KevH, it truly is, to me, hysterically funny, that this 'Matrix' is simply a means to reject any line of thought the opposes the Liberal agenda by naming it, 'innate'.

Sighs...in my usual clutzy fashion when it comes to internet issues, I chose not to listen to the video, but search for a text. I did, thought I found it, went through it, to discover at the end that I had downloaded the wrong text.

However...since I did invest some time and thought into the process, I offer what I found..you may find it amusing...

~~~

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

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.

Here's my alternative definition: morality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. It turns out that human societies have found several radically different approaches to suppressing selfishness, two of which are most relevant for understanding what Democrats don't understand about morality.

When one of the most read texts in opposition to this, "The Virtue of Selfishness", is totally ignored, as if no other premise was held by anyone, then rational response is not possible or expected. It is the 'faith based plank', of the liberal mantra to posit than man is by nature, 'selfish', which chills if not eliminates any discussion of the nature of man..

First, imagine society as a social contract invented for our mutual benefit. All individuals are equal, and all should be left as free as possible to move, develop talents, and form relationships as they please. The patron saint of a contractual society is John Stuart Mill, who wrote (in On Liberty) that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Mill's vision appeals to many liberals and libertarians; a Millian society at its best would be a peaceful, open, and creative place where diverse individuals respect each other's rights and band together voluntarily (as in Obama's calls for "unity") to help those in need or to change the laws for the common good.

Progressive modern 'liberals' are famous for claiming John Stuart Mill, as one of their own, then dismissing the content of his thoughts. Liberals are no longer, 'liberals', by definition, they are more akin to democratic socialists in that they reject any firm foundation for morality and ethics aside from, 'for the greater good...'

Psychologists have done extensive research on the moral mechanisms that are presupposed in a Millian society, and there are two that appear to be partly innate...

Someone thoughtfully asked about documentation and logic, e.g., 'proof', that any, 'moral mechanism', is innate, there is none. It is a total fabrication by liberal social psychologists to justify their inability to deal with the reality of nature dictating morality within the nature of man.

The Democrats must find a way to close the sacredness gap that goes beyond occasional and strategic uses of the words "God" and "faith." But if Durkheim is right, then sacredness is really about society and its collective concerns. God is useful but not necessary.

You see, the liberal left disagree with Christian morality, in fact, disagree with anything said to be 'absolute', or self evident. In this manner they can reject and form or ethics or morals with the claim that all is relative.

The purity/sanctity foundation is used heavily by the Christian right to condemn hedonism and sexual "deviance," but it can also be harnessed for progressive causes. Sanctity does not have to come from God; the psychology of this system is about overcoming our lower, grasping, carnal selves in order to live in a way that is higher, nobler, and more spiritual. Many liberals criticize the crassness and ugliness that our unrestrained free-market society has created. There is a long tradition of liberal anti-materialism often linked to a reverence for nature. Environmental and animal welfare issues are easily promoted using the language of harm/care, but such appeals might be more effective when supplemented with hints of purity/sanctity.

The 'sanctity' implied is, 'for the greater good', with liberals and socialists determining just what that, 'greater good', is composed of.

While I accidentally, apparently, got the text of the wrong speech, it is clear to me just where this left wing social psychologist is coming from.

Once again, in case you missed it, the entire exercise is to postulate a defective genetic characteristic of 'Conservatives', which the liberals posit they can, 'breed out', of the mix. Shades of eugenics and the Aryan superiority of Adolph Hitler.

Just how transparent can one be?

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

note to kev,

i'm quite puzzled.

indeed haidt stressed this point: [including your words of summary]

"Let's start at the beginning. What is morality and where does it come from?" He [Haidt] goes on to state that the "blank slate" idea for newborns is the worst idea to come along, and he reveals modern research that shows (proves?) that at the earliest measurable stages of life, we have innate abilities to know and judge morality on a basic scale. Much of this is even shared with the (lower) animal kingdom. To paraphrase him, "newborns come into the world already knowing so much about their physical and social roles, and programming to make certain things easier or more difficult to learn." He quotes a researcher, Marcus, who talks about the "first draft" of the moral mind. "The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience...Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises...'Built-in' does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience."
===

from 'newborns have lots of built in tendencies, some of which will yield their social skills and morality,' it's a LONG stretch, to "do not *ever* abort a 10-week embryo." EVEN though that one has some chance or reaching new born-hood. ayn rand was quite clear on this. the embryo is potential. it had potential--UP THE ROAD--to vote; yet at the moment, voting laws cannot apply. (the fetus, one day before birth, is, of course a different matter, as ayn rand and most progressives admit.)

the gist of the speech, which i've listened to, is 1) NOT to be self righteous. to recognize the other guy thinks he's right. PRESENCE of self righteousness is an almost invariable trait of Randists, and aspiring ones (see amicus, above).

the second gist of the speech is perhaps aimed at liberals: 2) respect the values of order, in group solidarity (e.g. patriotism), and purity.

one can see that NEITHER of these points has much bearing on abortion, which is indeed, not mentioned in the speech. would liberals MORE respect so called 'pro life' [coerce pregnant moms] if they followed 2)? well, i'd like to see the arguments, Kev. is it that abortion causes less social order? maybe, as amicus says, it causes "impurity" (poor people fucking outside marriage).

while i believe both sides of the abortion debate should talk, and indeed agree on compromises (of which roe v. wade is one!), i'd like to hear, Kev, in detail, how following haidt's advice ( 1) and 2) above is likely to lead *more in one direction than the other*.

IOW, why wouldn't NON self righteousness equally lead conservatives to embrace some exceptions [limited abortion rights], as for instance Reagan did (and our Roxanne).

==
NOTE: Of course i agree ALL of us should 'step outside the box'. examine assumptions. NOT assume one is 'right' and 'infallible'. I agree to that SOME liberals seem not to pay much attention to social cohesion [though the prob is found in conservatives with their 'in groups' , such as white Christian males.] but overall, attention to 'good communities' where persons live well, cooperate, and bloom as individuals is a common value of left and right.

 

[amicus]

"...while i believe both sides of the abortion debate should talk, and indeed agree on compromises..."

I doubt you will ever comprehend that the right to life cannot be compromised, but I will take this opportunity to point it out to you.

I realize the liberal mantra is to hiss that there are no absolute moral rights, but my right to my life, is absolute and I damn well invite you to try to take it from me.

Or would you willing sacrifice yours for the greater good?

May I operate the guillotine?

Amicus...

 

[Dragonlipz]

Ami, can I call ya 'Ami', cool, thanx.....

Again, couched in a butt load of high minded manure you've completely missed the point: abortion is not an action that should be decided by anyone besides God and the individual. I can't get pregnant. You claim to be male. Neither can you. We are out of the discussion that must take place between a WOMAN and her GOD. Whoever she is......But then, you come from a class of wannabe's who prize their CONTROL over a woman and her SUBMISSION to you as a milestone of life. I wonder what GOD would think about you exerting influence over another, sensient, individual? Maybe yer God would approve, I know that mine wouldn't - he's not the kind you have to wind up on Sunday.........

 

[Stella_Omega]

Props to you lipz, for the Jethro Tull reference!

The weird thing is Ami claims to be an atheist. I've never met another atheist who makes claims about "objective moral Truths" the way he does. But I suspect he merely switched his blind faith from "the Bible" to "the Fountainhead."

 

[DeeZire]

To place all the emphasis on valuing life is hypocritical when we kill other of our species as well as other creatures in a wide variety of creative and often socially sanctioned ways.

Good point. Consider collateral damage in dubious wars. Consider the death penalty in the justice system. Consider "acceptable risk" in decisions made in the free market. I distinctly recall reading about cost-benefit analysis being the deciding factor in whether or not a car company is going to do a recall or do a redesign on a product. If the retooling or recall will cost less than the lawsuits for unlawful death, they retool. If not, they accept a few unlawful death lawsuits as the cost of doing business. They apply the same thinking to industrial pollution, workplace safety, you name it. It's all about the bottom line. Human life has no value unless there will be lawsuits.

Then there's the fate of the unwanted child. Some people insist the mother must carry the unwanted child to term, but when the unwanted child ends up on welfare, those same people who insisted the child be born now claim no responsibility for that child. They say: let the family sink or swim on their own. So the unwanted child grows up in a shitty environment and ends up a criminal, raping, maiming, perhaps even taking a few lives on the way. So, those who insisted on exerting their control over the mother managed to save one life, but they ruined a hundred others down the line.

Life is not made up of black and white decisions. It's all shades of gray, at least for those who are looking at life without blinders on.

 

[amicus]

Life is not made up of black and white decisions. It's all shades of gray, at least for those who are looking at life without blinders on.

[/I]

Your 'automobile' analogy is a fictional work, your 'unwanted child' scenario is another liberal excuse for taking life.

Crime and Punishment has a long history in western civilization and modern society has meted out ultimate justice far less than your ancestors did.

The argument isn't even interesting any more concerning how to deal with crimes of a capital nature, that of taking another human life without cause.

The liberal position is really an absence of a position as they continue to reject the remnants of theology but fail to find moral justification in deciding how to punish criminals.

Many the child has risen from dire circumstances to eminence in all fields, and in any definition of human life, it possesses innate value. A shame you so easily advocate taking innocent life for no cause.

The entire liberal, 'lack of philosophical premises', has reached a dead end, as it properly should. Now if only you will begin to apply your minds to discovering and refining an objective set of values.

Amicus...

 

[Kev H]

Sorry, but this is not what science has found out, unless I have missed some groundbreaking new papers. There is brain matter, which has to be wired - the wiring occurs after the first experiences are accumulating - at least that is what neurology, clinical psychology and neurophysiology tell us. Moral decisions are actually so complex that they wouldn't occur before early childhood (2-3 years). Or in other words, unless you have the ability to process what is right and what is wrong (and understand the concept of duality to begin with) you can't possibly make a decision. Until about the end of the first year, there is not even the sense of "I", leave alone physical and social roles. So it wasn't a bad idea, as he stipulates, it is just the way it is, or at least the way mainstream science still defines it. "Nativism" - which he obviously subscribes to, is a fringe view, not the view of mainstream science.

Hi, PP, thanks for the input. In this speech, he shows a book of developmental psychology research(?) called The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, and I can only assume this is where he bases these views on (along with his own experiences/understandings as a psychologist). I don't know all about this subject and who is fringe and who isn't, but I'll take what he says with a grain of salt. Do me a favor and spend the 19 minutes to listen to the speech when you are able to. Then you can talk more informedly about what he says or what he means concerning this particular point.

Amicus, you miss valuable insight if you refuse to watch the 19-minute speech. Your right to do so, but you ought to not get upset or defensive about what you think he's saying (which you miss completely when you assume he's enforcing an "us versus them" liberal mindset). As pure pointed out (by missing my couched wording of the initial post, apparently), I was not even addressing the main points in this speech, merely a brief (20-ish second) offshoot that caught my attention. *spoiler* And while he appears to be completely pro-liberal for much of his speech, it was by design to make the predominantly liberal audience think about tricky concepts that might not play well with their worldview. Again, I encourage you to watch it with an open mind, as I feel you might have some very interesting comments about it, especially the concepts involving "for" and "against" mentalities that some of the eastern religions seem to grasp, and what he actually says in this speech about basic programmed moral predispositions (which seem to line up well with your stressing of self-evident moral/rights).

Pure, I was in a time crunch, so I only addressed the first point of interest to me (coming so early on in the speech); I made it clear to anyone with reading comprehension that my post was not a summary of the speech, that there were plenty more points of interest. The most fascinating point to me involves the perspective-gaining positions of viewing the value of both extremes. Of expanding your worldview, in essence, to understand the moral priorities of each mindset, and their value to us as humans. The 700ish C.E. quote from the Zen master Sent-ts’an is quite loaded and well thought out, wouldn't you say? So, if you rephrase your convoluted questioning from the standpoint of one who understands my post wasn’t a diatribe, but rather talking points, then I’ll be happy to answer/discuss with you.

Thanks for your understanding and input, sr, and Recidiva.

WR, I tend to agree with you, that if what this speaker claims is true, then we certainly are born/programmed with varying combinations of it (and I think Haidt would agree). Great thought.

Imp, I'd be very interested to see how you rationalize/explain your position (I will not assume, as sr does, that this is half-baked so you can feel okay with a strong pro-choice stance); I find it unfathomable that one can take a spiritually holistic approach to justify pro-choice--I tend to point out the various (wonderful) choices people had that led up to this particularly gut-wrenching choice. My not being able to fathom your approach certainly not make me dismiss it, but makes me more interested than ever to hear your thoughts on it.

Please no sigh, dear Stella, but watch the vid when you can and let me know your thoughts. And 'Lips, please watch the link before blasting amicus' view; I challenge you to grow some more.

Trying to head the entrenchment process off before the poo-flinging gains momentum enough to cover the thought processes.

 

[S-Des]

AWe are out of the discussion that must take place between a WOMAN and her GOD.

I would not say we are "out" of the discussion. The father of the fetus (child) should at least have the right to voice his concerns and have them heard with some seriousness (obviously dependent on his previous character). After all, if the mother chooses to have the child, he will be legally bound to her for the next 18 years (and possibly longer as some states require fathers to pay a portion of college as well).

As a citizen, you have a voice in all laws, even if they don't directly affect you. My personal sticking point has been pointed out in the thread already. You cannot guarantee the safety and emotional health of the mother, so you simply cannot outlaw the practice, no matter what science finds out in the future. The day a fetus can be "beamed" out of the mother with no consequences, then brought to term in another vessel (mechanical or human), the discussion will become much more difficult.

Morally, I'm very much against abortion. In some situations it's practically a necessity, and in others it is so difficult that no one should do more than offer the mother their support and kindness (possibly with the most carefully phrased advice). The problem comes in when people do it capriciously with fetuses that are completely viable. The problem is, the debate isn't over those issues (or ones of parental consent), it's over the right/wrong of any abortion, which divides the issue into so many fragmented groups that nothing can be accomplished.

I'd like to see more support for the mother and more options. There has been plenty of studies done that show a significant number later deeply regret their choice, which seems logical because I deeply regret the one time I supported an ex-girlfriend in her decision (did I say support...it was more like cheer leading for her decision). Maybe there would be less abortions if women had better medical care and clearer options for adoption (it's not like there isn't plenty of couples out there begging for a child). The answer (for now) is going to have to come with acceptance of the inability of Pro-Life people to force their will on others, which would hopefully bring them to use love and understanding instead, which is where they should have been all along.

 

[Pure]

note to kev.

kev said originally,

Many fascinating points were shoved into this speech, sometimes only mentioned for five seconds, and I'd really like to see a discussion on many of these. If you want to discuss a specify part, please reference it (even quote it for easy reference), so others can see what you are talking about.

Pure said,

//The gist of the speech, which i've listened to, is 1) NOT to be self righteous. to recognize the other guy thinks he's right. PRESENCE of self righteousness is an almost invariable trait of Randists, and aspiring ones (see amicus, above).

the second gist of the speech is perhaps aimed at liberals: 2) respect the values of order, in group solidarity (e.g. patriotism), and purity. //


kev replied, Pure, I was in a time crunch, so I only addressed the first point of interest to me (coming so early on in the speech); I made it clear to anyone with reading comprehension that my post was not a summary of the speech, that there were plenty more points of interest. The most fascinating point to me involves the perspective-gaining positions of viewing the value of both extremes.

i, pure, now respond: kev, i'm puzzled. first you ask for feedback on the main points of the speech. i listened and mentioned them. i said they had no direct bearing on abortion, an issue to which you devoted your post.

your reply is that "anyone with reading comprehension" should see you're not summarizing the speech, but are reacting to and extrapolating from an introductory [in my view, even NON essential] point made early in the speech.

what babies are born with [i.e. NOT a blank slate] has little to do with the main point of the speech, which is that one is NOT to assume one has a monopoly on truth or right.

kev asked pure
The 700ish C.E. quote from the Zen master Sent-ts’an is quite loaded and well thought out, wouldn't you say?

the quote, as i recall, said that to really think about and/or understand something you have to go beyond 'right' and 'wrong', or more generally (my paraphrase) black and white, and 'either/or' categories.

[ADDED] Specifically he said, "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between 'for' and 'against' is the mind's worst disease."

i have no problem at all with this zen buddhist approach; it's a point made by some modern philosophers, as well, e.g Nietzsche and Rorty.

it's well applied to some modern issues, including birth control, assisted suicide, and stem cell research. on each of these, esp. the last two, i quite well understand the 'social conservative' (dobson and amicus) position. even opposition to condom use by teens i have some handle on, since, as Haidt says, conservatives value 'purity'.

they want the teen to be pure, and are less concerned about HPV and AIDS, which are viewed as punishments/consequences of impurity. in haidt's terms, they do not pay much attention to harms.

so although the speaker did seem to be challenging liberals, i think the challenge is somewhat misplaced. on birth control, assisted suicide and stem cell research, "liberals" do listen to the 'other side'. For example, Obama, regarding stem cells, specifically took a middle road and specified that it was not right to create embryos for purposes of ending their lives.

those of us favoring assisted suicide are aware too of the 'other side' and the accusation that it brings holocaust to the old. our reply is to make many safeguards, as in Holland, such requirements as: the lucidity of the patient, the terminal nature of his/her situation; intractable pain; the opinions of more than one physician. all of these address the point 'what about greedy offspring forcing suicide on the rich, but old, relative?'

so my contention is that while some liberals need to keep open minds, it's the followers of Dobson and or the Pope, specifically amicus, here, who'd most benefit by Haidt's point about not assuming one has a monopoloy on truth and right.

i'd like to see you, too, Kev, address some topical issues with your 'zen' maxim, and see where it leads.

 

[past_perfect]

Hi, PP, thanks for the input. In this speech, he shows a book of developmental psychology research(?) called The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, and I can only assume this is where he bases these views on (along with his own experiences/understandings as a psychologist). I don't know all about this subject and who is fringe and who isn't, but I'll take what he says with a grain of salt. Do me a favor and spend the 19 minutes to listen to the speech when you are able to. Then you can talk more informedly about what he says or what he means concerning this particular point.

Yeah, I was thinking that he must have come from the Pinter corner. I have it lying around here somewhere, but still haven't managed to read that one. I have very little time at the moment, but I might actually watch the video sometime next week and put the "The clean slate" a little higher on my reading list. From the critical reviews I had read though I assumed that it has been sufficiently debunked in the meantime. In any case I will try to read it with an open mind.

 

[impressive]

Imp, I'd be very interested to see how you rationalize/explain your position (I will not assume, as sr does, that this is half-baked so you can feel okay with a strong pro-choice stance); I find it unfathomable that one can take a spiritually holistic approach to justify pro-choice--I tend to point out the various (wonderful) choices people had that led up to this particularly gut-wrenching choice. My not being able to fathom your approach certainly not make me dismiss it, but makes me more interested than ever to hear your thoughts on it.

But I *don't* take a spiritually holistic approach to "justify" it. I just point out the hypocrisy in the "all life is sacred" approach. I seriously doubt that most pro-life proponents are consistent in their protection of life -- even if we're limiting that life to humans. When you extend it beyond human, then the waters get even muddier.

I "justify" my own position as an issue of control. We (as humans) are already taking life. Abortion is just one way that we do it. There are many others -- from genocide to cigarettes. Sanctity has nothing to do with it.

 

[mismused]

******

 

[Kev H]

Is nature, God, wasteful? No, I can't answer that, however, it is for wondering at.

So, Kev, are you too great into being against abortion? If you are, so am I, but I'm not knowledgeable to know the answer for everyone. It's their-her-choice. It is good to wonder though, and I hope none take it as other than that, and consider it a "battlefield" of their "greater knowledge of life."

Hello, mismused--so wonderful to see you hanging around here. As for your first very interesting question, I wonder this: given the harsh nature of existence and the relatively rare success of a healthy child, wouldn't it make the most sense to have tons of redundancy built into the process? In almost all cases, from data backups to having the bigger military, we seem to feel more comfortable about our success when we have spares. We all know putting all our eggs in one basket is risky, but having lots of eggs around when you only need one perfect one makes a certain amount of biological sense to me.

On abortion, I don't mind admitting that my very initial reaction was to cry against those who wanted to force women to do anything with their body, and I think SDes did a better job of stating a belief similar to mine. I certainly don't wish to come across as saying "this is my belief, so this is what we should do," and I most certainly understand the giant pitfalls and emotional storms that exist around this topic.

I also think Imp has a good point, that the "all life is sacred" reasoning for this case is truly bizarre, but I also do not think very many people (read: only the philosophical fringe) take this stance. I may be giving pro-lifers too much credit, as a whole, but I honestly think their underlying motivation lies in the noble interests of protecting/nurturing the human potential.

There is something scary and disheartening about the concept of snuffing out that life (that potential human) before it has a chance to become a her or a him. There are relatively easy answers to all of the pro-choice talking points that do not lead to abortion, except for the concern on the mother's health.

Again, I'd prefer (were I a policy maker) to build a vast cultural awareness/support system that minimized irresponsible choices (via honoring abstinence choices, making birth control available, and humorously enough, reminding people of all the other sexual options available--anyone lucky enough to have tangled, literally, with a talented giver knows how much more powerful oral sex can be than intercourse, from a strict sexual gratification standpoint), that made alternatives more viable (adding status to the noble choice of carrying to term and letting the adoption process work, for instance), to using our vast scientific knowledge to minimize the long-term impact on women's bodies, and to lastly, making abortion available for those who have no other choice (i.e., I certainly would not remove that option, even though I'd do everything to make that option less appropriate-seeming).

Hi, pure; I hope I've been clearer in the last post that this was only one talking point, and yes, my first point could be seen as non-essential to Haidt's main topic (yet does that invalidate it?), so I'd certainly love to cover other issues with you and anyone who would like to weight in. I did not want to imply that Haidt's points were only valid for liberals, but remember he had a mostly liberal audience for the speech (and unless Dobson's type is doing research on the "enemy," he'd not even see this video, most likely). Also, understand that high-minded liberals offer the best hope, by virtue of their example, for evolving the human species for the better (in fact, isn't that the gist of what TED is all about?), for showing more conservative thinkers that it's okay to loosen up their stranglehold on/against reason (in a sense, to give their blind faith a rest for a moment).

Conservatives, by their very nature, are not completely opposed to a cautious form of change, but I agree with Haidt that they will sacrifice it for stability. They often seem so unmoving (especially relative to progressives) since their change may happen over many generations or may even be only a fraction of the progress they hope for (they use the fear of losing their stability as a check-balance, and I honestly cannot fault that reasoning, in and of itself). Often their ideals are stated like "this is the way it is and the way it will always be," but I believe this is more of a reactionary stance to the threat of too fast a change than something they believe in to the core (some are even scientists, after all).

In summary, let's say, completely hypothetically, that your enemy (amicus) is completely unwilling to examine these values, and even has the audacity to ridicule you for thinking in these terms. Is this a good excuse for not thinking this way? Does this justify entrenchment and warfare against him? Please let me know what you think.

 

[Verdad]

Kev, I was enthused you invited us to discuss something in a non-knee-jerk manner, but I too have a difficult time deciding what the discussion is about.

I went looking for a transcript of Haidt, couldn't find it, then came up with this NYT article. From what I see here, the connection between his work and the issue of abortion is tenuous at best, as are some of the links you've made in your opening post.

If the topic truly is abortion, I'll briefly respond below to a post I thought presented an honest view I could respect.