# The moral roots of liberals and conservatives **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 1, 2010, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924 "2010-03-01T21:55:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![sciurophobic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cab0a1/32.png) [@sciurophobic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sciurophobic)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/101 "2010-03-03T20:36:25Z")
The conservative viewpoint can be best summed up by “I didn’t need any help from the government to get where I am, so nobody else should either.” ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/102 "2010-03-03T20:44:42Z")
> [@sciurophobic](#): > > The conservative viewpoint can be best summed up by “I didn’t need any help from the government to get where I am, so nobody else should either.” I think there are some like that except of course they almost certainly have benefited in numerous ways from government help. Reminds me of the guy with the sign ranting that he wants the government to keep its [hands off his Medicare](http://markc1.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451bb2969e20120a5c02dda970c-800wi)! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/103 "2010-03-03T20:52:22Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > And conservatives would say that torture is an excusable evil if it is saving lives, or that aborting unborn children is evil, or that their sacred traditions shouldn’t be fucked with, or that it is evil to take money away from hard working people and give it to others just because they “need it”. Most issues don’t break down into pure black and white like you want them to. Torture is a black and white issue. Letting people starve to death is a black and white issue. Forcing women to bear children is a black and white issue. People who support those things are evil, period. Regardless of whether or not they’ve convinced themselves otherwise. A conviction of your own righteousness won’t make your victims suffer less. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Second, you take what you see as the results of a policy and then you believe that proponents of that policy specifically intend that result. That is a ludicrous thing to do. For example, just because you believe the result of the government not providing welfare would be that the poor would starve does not mean that, by supporting that policy, fiscal conservatives specifically intend for the poor to starve. They may believe that that result would not follow from the policy at all. So basically, you are claiming that I’m wrong that they know what they are doing and they all really are just idiots. > [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Dio, this is ridiculous, even for you. > > People in Iraq weren’t killed in service of conservatism–they were just killed in a war fought while a conservative was president. A war fought for ( neo- ) conservative purposes, that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/104 "2010-03-03T20:54:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Err…does the Gulf of Tonkin Incident count? As anything having to do with “liberals”? No. Just because a president is a Democrat does not mean that every descision he makes defines liberalism. And who were all those anti-war protesters and how did they feel about LBJ? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/105 "2010-03-03T21:01:16Z")
> [@sqweels](#): > > As anything having to do with “liberals”? No. > > Just because a president is a Democrat does not mean that every descision he makes defines liberalism. > > And who were all those anti-war protesters and how did they feel about LBJ? Preaching to the choir. I was just pointing it out is all. ---
**Author:** ![A.Selene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ec8ea/32.png) [@A.Selene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Selene)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/106 "2010-03-03T21:14:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Quite clear in getting caught out. > > Face it, you got caught pretending you did not say something when you clearly did. That “or” does not in any way save or mitigate the sentence. Perhaps in your head you meant something different but we cannot know what that might be. > > Stung you decide to lash out and call me names. > > Suck it up and move on. My apologies about the snark, that was out of line. But this is what is maddening about the Dope. In my first post, I wrote > [@](#): > > In general, liberals are for freedom in the social sphere of human activity, but often against it in the economic sphere. You have ignored that and focused on another line that has a meaning different that the one you thought it did. You misread, I clarified my point, yet you persist. Now instead of having meaningful discussion, we’ve wasted the last few posts arguing about nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/107 "2010-03-03T21:15:54Z")
> [@A.Selene](#): > > I agree. The goal should be to maximize freedom, maximize choices for people, and minimize the use of force. I wasn’t clear about that last part in my previous post, my apologies, but it’s essential. Force is anathema to freedom. There have been many studies indicating that more choices do not lead to better choices. Thaler and Sunstein’s “Nudge” has a chapter or two on this. Clearly offering innumerate people the choice of subprime mortgages didn’t work out so well. Choice, choice, choice is conservative dogma , and is based on the “everyone is as smart as I think I am” premise. Force an anathema to freedom? Really? Force applied to stop our enemies? Force applied to stop someone trying to kill you? Force applied in stopping a drunk driver who is a threat to others? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/108 "2010-03-03T21:35:33Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Force an anathema to freedom? Really? Force applied to stop our enemies? Force applied to stop someone trying to kill you? Force applied in stopping a drunk driver who is a threat to others? Yes. Not only is force not “anathema to freedom”; it is necessary to freedom. Freedom is something that has to be enforced. ---
**Author:** ![A.Selene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3ec8ea/32.png) [@A.Selene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/A.Selene)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/109 "2010-03-03T21:41:07Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > There have been many studies indicating that more choices do not lead to better choices. Thaler and Sunstein’s “Nudge” has a chapter or two on this. Clearly offering innumerate people the choice of subprime mortgages didn’t work out so well. Choice, choice, choice is conservative dogma , and is based on the “everyone is as smart as I think I am” premise. > > Force an anathema to freedom? Really? Force applied to stop our enemies? Force applied to stop someone trying to kill you? Force applied in stopping a drunk driver who is a threat to others? Force is applied in all of those areas to protect one’s ultimate freedom: their life. Of course I’m going to support the use of force to protect life, liberty, or property. If it’s not to protect a right, the use of force is contrary to freedom. I haven’t read it, but I get the impression you are mistaking what “Nudge” is about. It isn’t about force… it’s about making the default for decisions the “better” of two or more choices. It’s not eliminating the choice, which is what force ultimately does. ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/82dd89/32.png) [@Kearsen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/110 "2010-03-03T21:46:22Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think there are some like that except of course they almost certainly have benefited in numerous ways from government help. > > Reminds me of the guy with the sign ranting that he wants the government to keep its [hands off his Medicare](http://markc1.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451bb2969e20120a5c02dda970c-800wi)! To utilize your line, what has changed from the person who made it to the person who wants to make it? It seems to me that equal governmental intervention (since we all agree that SOME governmental intervention is necessary) is only right. Why do we have programs designed to prop up others so they they too might succeed? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/111 "2010-03-03T22:03:00Z")
> [@A.Selene](#): > > Force is applied in all of those areas to protect one’s ultimate freedom: their life. Of course I’m going to support the use of force to protect life, liberty, or property. If it’s not to protect a right, the use of force is contrary to freedom. I haven’t read it, but I get the impression you are mistaking what “Nudge” is about. It isn’t about force… it’s about making the default for decisions the “better” of two or more choices. It’s not eliminating the choice, which is what force ultimately does. I was referring to Nudge to counter your naive assumption that more choices lead to better choices. They do not discuss force, and consider themselves libertarians. Not only have I read Nudge (and Predictably Irrational and some of the basic papers in the area, as well as some of Thaler’s more serious books) but I have published in the area of the application of behavioral economics to engineering, and have done a tutorial at a conference on the subject - with my daughter, who studied with Thaler, and who is now doing her PhD research in the area. Consider your ignorance fought. In the extreme force can of course eliminate choice. But, given any amount of necessary government, force is alas necessary in the last resort to collect taxes in support of that government. Even if government were cut down to whatever level you think is best, if some people were allowed to avoid paying for it you and I would have to pay more, and thus have our choice of what to do with our money reduced. The necessary level of government we’ll disagree on, but that has nothing to do with the basic principle. Crying about “force” is an appeal to the emotions of the reader, since none of us likes to be forced to do anything. But it is meaningless in relation to any civilized society. Go read “Leviathan” - this is not exactly a recent insight. ---
**Author:** ![Telcontar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3bc359/32.png) [@Telcontar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telcontar)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/112 "2010-03-03T22:07:44Z")
Specifically on Haidt’s work: What he actually finds is that liberals endorse harm and fairness more than conservatives awhile conservatives endorse authority, purity and ingroup more than liberals. So his liberals use 2 conservatives use 3 line is actually poorly supported by his own data. Also, again from his own data, neither liberals nor conservatives are, on average, ignoring any of the foundations; there is always at least moderate agreement. Finally, if you actually look at the scales, there is a substantial “so what” element to his research. Though he claims to be measuring morality, his items have a fairly direct political tinge to them. The most recent version of his scale is slightly better, but only slightly. [http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php?t=questionnaires](http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/mft/index.php?t=questionnaires) ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/113 "2010-03-03T23:39:01Z")
Man, there sure are a lot of true Scotsmen in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Dick\_Dastardly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@Dick\_Dastardly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dick_Dastardly)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/114 "2010-03-04T01:37:10Z")
You know how liberals always claim conservatives are motivated by fear, hatred and greed? It turns out that that’s how the GOP sees them too : The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group. The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.” Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.” Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.” > **[Exclusive: RNC document mocks donors, plays on 'fear'](https://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866_Page2.html)** > > RNC plans aggressive fundraising campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/115 "2010-03-04T02:11:07Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > So basically, you are claiming that I’m wrong that they know what they are doing and they all really are just idiots. No, I’m claiming that people have different opinions on the outcome of a policy. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/116 "2010-03-04T02:16:54Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > These are not people who actually exist on the American left. This is a conservative media caricature, not a reality. This is a pretty liberal board. How many people here have you ever seen saying they idolized Guevera or Chavez? I have no use for either of them. They’re just different variations of crazy. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/117 "2010-03-04T02:22:21Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > No, I’m claiming that people have different opinions on the outcome of a policy. And in many cases, that means they are indulging in wilful ignorance or sheer stupidity. Or, which I think is more common, they know exactly how nasty the results will be and either don’t care or actively enjoy the idea. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/118 "2010-03-04T02:22:38Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > But they were acting on behalf of a conservative cause (kill the commies), and Johnson recognized that it was a mistake after he got in there. They also didn’t lie their way into it. Plus Nixon was the one who escalated it and bombed Cambodia. It was also Nixon who ended it. Whether you liked him or not, let’s be fair. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/119 "2010-03-04T02:53:47Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And in many cases, that means they are indulging in wilful ignorance or sheer stupidity. Or, which I think is more common, they know exactly how nasty the results will be and either don’t care or actively enjoy the idea. Do you think that liberals endorse the policies they do out of a desire to increase the power of government and to increase the people’s dependence on the government? That’s a common attitude of conservatives, and I think shows the flip side of what you are saying about conservatives. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/120 "2010-03-04T03:27:28Z")
> [@Dick\_Dastardly](#): > > You know how liberals always claim conservatives are motivated by fear, hatred and greed? It turns out that that’s how the GOP sees them too : > > The most unusual section of the presentation is a set of six slides headed “RNC Marketing 101.” The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group. > > The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.” > > Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.” > Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.” > [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866\_Page2.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33866_Page2.html) What about the ones who believe in the same philosophy or the same group of policies? I know it’s crazy, but what about the ones who share the same political view? The ones who actually think before opening the wallet or checkbook and know what they wiil or won’t contribute to? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924.md?page=7)