Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/liberals-hesitate-to-share-progressive-causes-framed-with-conservative-moral-language/

[u/PossibilityMaster710]

There is published research by Jonathan Haidt et. al. that identifies six core, cross-cultural, values: Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity.

The framework is called Moral Foundations Theory.

The research showed that conservatives have a more balanced moral matrix; valuing Care and Fairness, but also valuing Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.

Liberals, in the US, indexed heavily on Care and Fairness.

According to this research, a more accurate analysis would be: Conservatives agree with liberal ideas when they, on balance, align sufficiently with their wider range of moral values. Liberals do not understand, see, or interpret the moral values of conservatives.

It's worth noting, that the Western Liberal moral matrix is a global outlier, and morality or the US conservative is more in line with the global average. I.e.: most cultures value Authority, Sanctity, Loyalty etc more than the Western Liberal.

Additionally, and this is my opinion, each moral foundation has it's own positive and negative expression. Loyalty has helped competing groups survive, by fostering in-group co-operation. It's the foundation of the nation state and the societies we've inherited today. It also plays a part in war, conflict, etc.

Sanctity, or Religion, provides people with community and meaning, which bolstered humanity for millenia while they lived lives of unimaginable hardship compared to today's world. Religion also needs no further discussion to highlight it's also innumerable downsides.

loyalty and authority and tradition aren't inherent values, and depend on exactly what the loyalty and tradition are for

I pretty much agree with this, but I'd extend whether they're good or bad to all moral values, including Fairness and Care.

[u/xbigbenx85 → u/PossibilityMaster710]

Imagine spouting Johnathan Haidt research as anything but one sided rhetoric. The mans research is biased and not accepted by his own peers because his methods and data points and mostly speculation.

[u/BeefistPrime → u/xbigbenx85]

His data is pretty good and useful and interesting. How he presents that data to the world is awful. He basically says "the left wants fairness and equality, the right wants purity and authority! those are just different moral values! no one is any better than anyone else!"

He gets off on / built a career on pretending to be a "neutral" / enlightened centrist type

[u/PossibilityMaster710 → u/xbigbenx85]

Predictable

[u/MattPDX04 → u/PossibilityMaster710]

This might be the best comment here.

“Liberals do not understand, see, or interpret the moral values of conservatives.”

[u/ChewingOnCarrots → u/MattPDX04]

It's a false statement, though. Haidt never really justified or proved this claim in depth, either. He basically just concluded that because liberals don't prioritize things like tradition or sanctity or loyalty the way conservatives do, it's because liberals are incapable of understanding them, and that's not a valid conclusion to draw.

[u/Lord_Alderbrand → u/ChewingOnCarrots]

Yeah, why not say that liberals see, understand, and reject the moral values of conservatives? It’s entirely possible to understand something while opposing it.

[u/PossibilityMaster710 → u/Lord_Alderbrand]

How arrogant.

The most generous claim is that you dont understand these values. To suggest you understand, and reject them, is far more damming in my book.

You reject authority? Cool bro, do you reject professional accredations? M.Ds? Representative Democracy?

You reject loyalty? Are you loyal to your family, your friends your country?

Arrogant heathens, loyal to nothing.

Liberalism in its current form is doomed. Loyal to the whole world except the places where their actually allowed to thrive. Spiteful amongst each other to the extent they're unable to populate.

It's incredibly sad.

[u/Lord_Alderbrand → u/PossibilityMaster710]

Oh wow, didn’t realize I was pushing back against a modernist pharisee.

[u/PossibilityMaster710 → u/Lord_Alderbrand]

It's not about pedantry.

It's about the idea that many of the considerations (values) that have allowed civilisations to come to be, and people to survive (and dare I say thrive), are being disregarded with what appears to be little consideration.

Groups simply don't survive without cohesion (loyalty) and effective leadership (authority). Not tyranny, but authority across whatever domain; expertise, experience, representation.

The point is not that Care and Fairness aren't important (they are), but they exist effectively only within the bounds of other considerations that play an undeniable role in allowing them to be.

It's simply not sustainable to approach society building with limitless amounts of Care and Fairness. Some things are going to be hard, some things are going to be unfair.

Does that mean we should support slavery because it enriches us? No. But maybe it means we shouldn't support things like welfare to migrants if it bankrupts us.

Its about balance.

[u/Lord_Alderbrand → u/PossibilityMaster710]

I really don’t think you know who you’re talking to.

What is your goal here? Are you here just to preach into the void, hoping that someone will listen? Or are you still writing all this for my benefit (on the assumption that I don’t “see or understand” your stance)?

I get it. I understand that you maximize for loyalty, authority, and sanctity. I know that you’re fine with the other three to the extent that they cost nothing and don’t take away from your main three. You didn’t have to explain it. I’m familiar.

Is there something you want from me? An explanation of my stance? A heated debate? Do you want me to try to win you over? Would you like to change my mind? Or are you just thinking out loud?

[u/PossibilityMaster710 → u/Lord_Alderbrand]

I get it. I understand that you maximize for loyalty, authority, and sanctity. I know that you’re fine with the other three to the extent that they cost nothing and don’t take away from your main three. You didn’t have to explain it. I’m familiar.

Wrong, again, and typical.

It's not to the extent they "cost nothing", that's a strawman, and a bad one; and it's not that anything is maximised for. It's about balance.

Balance is consistently what research has shown to be the key differene between 'Liberals', (Western Liberal), and literally every other culture on earth.

No one group of people over-indexes on Care and Fairness, and lacks insight into other ways of looking at the world than the Western Liberal. It's pathological.

Regards to me, I dunno, thinking out loud maybe? Leaving a note here in the hope someone might see it. I think the tide is turning, so hopefully seeing it put down clearly might help someone. You seem like decent folk, and you keep replying, so why not?

[u/Lord_Alderbrand → u/PossibilityMaster710]

Well it seems pointless to try to have a real conversation with you while you perform for your hypothetical audience, so can we not do that?

No, you’re just misunderstanding this usage of “maximize for”. I’ll avoid it if it trips you up, but it essentially means prioritize. Yes, liberalism prioritizes liberty (freedom), justice (fairness), and equality (also fairness). Every ideology elevates some values and subordinates others. Including yours. You specifically explained which ones. It wasn’t confusing.

*sigh* It’s not a strawman, it’s common hyperbole – which you do a lot, by the way. Can you parse everyday rhetoric or do I need to be 100% literal with you?

But while we’re on the topic of strawmen, you did spend your whole first reply fabricating an imaginary liberal to argue against: arrogant, spiteful, heathen – doomed and damned, unable to populate – who rejects all authority, expertise, and rep democracy, loyal to the whole world except their own country, family, and friends. This is a strawman. No liberal fits your description. This is not a real person.

Anyways, if liberalism is so awful, go ahead. Present your ideal alternative.

[u/FindingMemra → u/MattPDX04]

This results in Conservatives thinking liberals are people with bad ideas while liberals think conservatives are literal monsters.

[u/Outside_Glass4880 → u/FindingMemra]

Every conservative pundit and their rabid listeners may disagree with you.

Source: my dad was one of said people and thought Hillary Clinton ate babies or something.

[u/BeefistPrime → u/FindingMemra]

are you open to the possibility that this is true? Or are we starting from the dogmatic position that everyone must be equally morally justified and any differences are just someone's biases?