# 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:** 7
**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 4, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/121 "2010-03-04T03:51:00Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > 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. Check out the big brain on Brad! You’re appeal to authority is coming across as a bit pretentious, and seems rather out of place here. Lay out what you have to say and I’ll listen - you don’t have to sway me with who you know and lists of what you have read. I’d like to point out that no where did I state that more choices leads to better ones, contrary to your naive assumption. Consider your lack of reading comprehension fought. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/122 "2010-03-04T04:03:40Z")
Well, I’ve read a lot of books too. And magazines, and comic books. Here’s what I say, in summary form: I prefer to have choices. If I make the wrong choice, if I make a mistake, if I royally screw up, that is far far far preferable to having someone “protect me from myself”. In short, I reserve the right to make mistakes and just maybe learn from them. I’m pretty liberal, and the idea that someone - anyone - would presume to limit my choices “for my own good” is ridiculous. More choices may not lead to better choices. True. But I don’t want or need some “uber nanny” up my butt controlling me or protecting me from my “bad” choices. ---
**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 4, 2010, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/123 "2010-03-04T06:06:09Z")
> [@A.Selene](#): > > Check out the big brain on Brad! You’re appeal to authority is coming across as a bit pretentious, and seems rather out of place here. Lay out what you have to say and I’ll listen - you don’t have to sway me with who you know and lists of what you have read. I’d like to point out that no where did I state that more choices leads to better ones, contrary to your naive assumption. Consider your lack of reading comprehension fought. :rolleyes: [Here is a review from the New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/03/01/040301crbo_books) of a book on this very subject. [Here is an abstract](http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122186742/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) of a paper on the subject. [Here](http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/articles/Choice_is_Demotivating.pdf) is the original paper on the jam experiment. One explanation is that people hate to make the wrong decision, so giving them lots and lots of choices increases the probability that they will - and thus they take the default choice, or make no choice at all. We only have so much time and energy with which to make a decision, after all. I encourage you to actually read this stuff, and not to make assumptions based on the title of a book. ---
**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 4, 2010, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/124 "2010-03-04T06:08:38Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Well, I’ve read a lot of books too. And magazines, and comic books. > Here’s what I say, in summary form: > > I prefer to have choices. If I make the wrong choice, if I make a mistake, if I royally screw up, that is far far far preferable to having someone “protect me from myself”. In short, I reserve the right to make mistakes and just maybe learn from them. > > I’m pretty liberal, and the idea that someone - anyone - would presume to limit my choices “for my own good” is ridiculous. > > More choices may not lead to better choices. True. But I don’t want or need some “uber nanny” up my butt controlling me or protecting me from my “bad” choices. Okay - would you like to have the choice among all medicines that anyone comes up with? They will all make claims about efficacy and safety, and no one will check them or ban ones that will kill you or not do anything to cure you because that would be limiting your precious choice. Is that the world you would like to live in? ---
**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 4, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/125 "2010-03-04T14:08:17Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > [Here is a review from the New Yorker](http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/03/01/040301crbo_books) of a book on this very subject. > > [Here is an abstract](http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122186742/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) of a paper on the subject. > > [Here](http://www.columbia.edu/~ss957/articles/Choice_is_Demotivating.pdf) is the original paper on the jam experiment. > > One explanation is that people hate to make the wrong decision, so giving them lots and lots of choices increases the probability that they will - and thus they take the default choice, or make no choice at all. We only have so much time and energy with which to make a decision, after all. > > I encourage you to actually read this stuff, and not to make assumptions based on the title of a book. I will check out the links, thanks. I don’t disagree with you here, and I get the feeling we’ve been talking past each other. I’ve read some reviews of _Nudge_ myself, and thought you were incorrectly applying the central theme of the book to the argument I was making. I have **not** argued that more choices leads to better ones, and in fact realize they can lead to worse. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/126 "2010-03-04T15:24:46Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > 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. Just because you say it is a black and white issue does not make it so. ---
**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, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/127 "2010-03-04T15:52:52Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > 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? I’m sure there are one or two of them out there but GOP Marketing 101 literally says what I said it says. Those guys know their market and according to them their personal donor market is scared, angry people. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/128 "2010-03-04T16:50:39Z")
> [@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) Read that same story a few minutes ago. It seems conservatives realize they can be fear-mongering and self-centered too, but they don’t seem to view those as negatives ---
**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, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/129 "2010-03-04T20:55:14Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > 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. No, because conservatives are delusional, assuming they believe what they are saying. And hypocritical if they don’t. Liberals don’t want to increase the power of government any more than conservatives do; less if anything. And helping people who need it isn’t “increasing their dependence on government”. That’s not even really practical to do, anyway; everyone who isn’t living as a hermit in the wilderness is pretty much totally dependent on the government for their lifestyle. Just look what happens in failed states. “Rugged individualism” is a form of self delusion more than anything else. > [@msmith537](#): > > Just because you say it is a black and white issue does not make it so. And just because you declare that something is an issue that reasonable, moral people can disagree on doesn’t make it so. I’m not going to pretend that torture or racism is anything but stupid and barbaric just because saying so condemns the people that support it. Sometimes, one side is right, and the other wrong. ---
**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 4, 2010, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/130 "2010-03-04T21:06:42Z")
> [@A.Selene](#): > > I will check out the links, thanks. I don’t disagree with you here, and I get the feeling we’ve been talking past each other. I’ve read some reviews of _Nudge_ myself, and thought you were incorrectly applying the central theme of the book to the argument I was making. I have **not** argued that more choices leads to better ones, and in fact realize they can lead to worse. Okay. I was not using the book to speak about force at all, so if I misled you into thinking that was my argument, that could be the source of the problem. Dan Ariely, in **Predictably Irrational** doesn’t discuss choice at all, but I think over all it is a better book. Both are better than Freakonomics - I haven’t read the sequel yet, though I have it. ---
**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 4, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/131 "2010-03-04T22:14:23Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Okay. I was not using the book to speak about force at all, so if I misled you into thinking that was my argument, that could be the source of the problem. > > Dan Ariely, in **Predictably Irrational** doesn’t discuss choice at all, but I think over all it is a better book. Both are better than Freakonomics - I haven’t read the sequel yet, though I have it. Ha. 🙂 That’s funny, I was just talking with a friend yesterday who was raving about _Predictably Irrational_. I’ll definitely check it out now. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/132 "2010-03-04T22:27:33Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Okay - would you like to have the choice among all medicines that anyone comes up with? They will all make claims about efficacy and safety, and no one will check them or ban ones that will kill you or not do anything to cure you because that would be limiting your precious choice. Is that the world you would like to live in? Why restrict it to medicines, unless you are constructing a strawman? There have been medicines which were on the market, and supposedly safe, that turned out to be a disaster. Look up Thalidomide. I thought the thread was about liberal vs conservative, their “moral roots”, and choices in general. One of the posts seemed to be talking about “protecting us from ousrselves and our bad choices”, but did not limit it to any one specific area. My reply was the general reply to that seemingly general question. For the most part, having more choices is the preferred option. In light of that, no one needs to make a blanket declaration that I, we, anyone, must be protected from ourselves. But, strictly speaking about medicines (since you brought it up), and pulling numbers out of my ass to make a point, if I can get medicine I absolutely need, in the US for 100 dollars a pill, but can get the same exact medicine from Canada for 50cents a bottle, I want that option. In that case, you are not protecting me one bit, you are hurting me. OVER ALL more choices = a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/133 "2010-03-05T17:24:15Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > But, strictly speaking about medicines (since you brought it up), and pulling numbers out of my ass to make a point, if I can get medicine I absolutely need, in the US for 100 dollars a pill, but can get the same exact medicine from Canada for 50cents a bottle, I want that option. In that case, you are not protecting me one bit, you are hurting me. > > OVER ALL more choices = a good thing. You’re assuming all choices are good. Simple math states that if you can eliminate the bad choices, you have a much greater chance of picking a good choice. Ah, but what are bad choices, you retort? Not being a doctor, I wouldn’t know which medicines are bad and which arent. I, like most people, have to rely on agencies like the FDA. If they say a specific medicine is bad and ban it from sale, then maybe it is. Though, if you can go to Canada (not Mexico) to get the same thing for pennies, then you have to look at what agency you trust more, or take your chances. More choices is only good if there is a constellation of decent to good choices available. If you’re sifting through the muck looking for one good choice among many bad ones, then less choices is better. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/134 "2010-03-05T20:57:15Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You’re assuming all choices are good. Simple math states that if you can eliminate the bad choices, you have a much greater chance of picking a good choice. And I never said all choices are good, but I reserve the right to HAVE choices. Which should dovetail nicely with your statement below, about when we only have bad “choices” to select from. > [@](#): > > Ah, but what are bad choices, you retort? Not being a doctor, I wouldn’t know which medicines are bad and which arent. I, like most people, have to rely on agencies like the FDA. If they say a specific medicine is bad and ban it from sale, then maybe it is. Though, if you can go to Canada (not Mexico) to get the same thing for pennies, then you have to look at what agency you trust more, or take your chances. Missing the point - I used an example of getting expensive meds here, or going accross the border to get the SAME medicine, only cheaper. > [@](#): > > More choices is only good if there is a constellation of decent to good choices available. If you’re sifting through the muck looking for one good choice among many bad ones, then less choices is better. If there are only bad things to select from, then I definitely do NOT want the people who set it up that way, telling me they get to decide what I will be allowed to decide. If ALL the choices are bad, then I still want to be able to choose (for myself) the lesser of evils. So, no, saying the “constellation of choices” is already bad, does not count for me. That just says someone else already made BAD choices “for me” without cosulting me and with my knowledge or consent. And who would that bad decider be? Maybe the “nanny state” that I didn’t want in my personal business to begin with. Conservative talk a lot about freedom. It seems to be, they want to have their brand of freedom, but they want to control and limit “those other guys”. Liberals a lot about freedom. It seems to be, they want to have their brand of freedom, but they want to control and limit “those other guys”. Let’s drop the pretenses. They ALL want to be the ones calling the shots for everyone else, but their own “version of freedom” is somehow sacred. It’s all the same. ---
**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 5, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/135 "2010-03-05T21:52:19Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Conservative talk a lot about freedom. It seems to be, they want to have their brand of freedom, but they want to control and limit “those other guys”. > > Liberals a lot about freedom. It seems to be, they want to have their brand of freedom, but they want to control and limit “those other guys”. > > Let’s drop the pretenses. They ALL want to be the ones calling the shots for everyone else, but their own “version of freedom” is somehow sacred. > > It’s all the same. That “both sides are just as bad” bit is an idea the Right has been pushing for a long time, but it’s a false equivalence. Preventing people from harming others just isn’t the same as persecuting people for harmless beliefs or practices. Consensual sex or going to the “wrong” ( or no ) church just isn’t the same as selling poison. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/136 "2010-03-05T22:24:28Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That “both sides are just as bad” bit is an idea the Right has been pushing for a long time, but it’s a false equivalence. Preventing people from harming others just isn’t the same as persecuting people for harmless beliefs or practices. Consensual sex or going to the “wrong” ( or no ) church just isn’t the same as selling poison. I’m more on the left, you probably know my posting history and general opinions. . My point was, I am past the point of being sick of all the different people, waving different banners, claiming that they all are doing shit for MY own good. I’m pretty liberal, and I don’t WANT people deciding my decisions and making my choices, and cutting down on my ability/freedom making of my own choices, for my own good - especialy when too often, it’s really not going to do me any good. It’s bullshit, it’s insulting, and there’s been enough. In short, “those who know best for me” need to stop “helping” me all the time. ---
**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 5, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/137 "2010-03-05T23:16:21Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I’m more on the left, you probably know my posting history and general opinions. But it is an idea I hear more from the Right, and I believe originates from them. Part of their whole strategy of “since we have nothing good to promote, let’s tell everyone the other side is just as bad as us!” > [@SteveG1](#): > > In short, “those who know best for me” need to stop “helping” me all the time. Judging from history, that would mean you’d have an excellent chance of ending up sick or dead or otherwise suffering at the hands of those who would take advantage of you. You aren’t more free by being made available as a victim. ---
**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 7, 2010, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/138 "2010-03-07T00:25:46Z")
> [@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. Right. I know you think that. I’m just telling you that thinking that is an extremely ignorant thing to do. People have different opinions on the outcome of a policy. Just because you think a policy will have a certain outcome does not mean that proponents of that policy specifically intend that outcome or even think that that outcome will occur. To think otherwise (as you do) is simply ignorant. ---
**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 7, 2010, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/139 "2010-03-07T03:57:52Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > Right. I know you think that. I’m just telling you that thinking that is an extremely ignorant thing to do. People have different opinions on the outcome of a policy. Just because you think a policy will have a certain outcome does not mean that proponents of that policy specifically intend that outcome or even think that that outcome will occur. To think otherwise (as you do) is simply ignorant. Nonsense. When a policy has an easily predictable outcome, and people ignore that outcome even when it is pointed out to them they are either stupid, engaging in willful self delusion, or are lying when they talk about their goals. ---
**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 7, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924/140 "2010-03-07T14:52:45Z")
Or they disagree with you that the outcome will occur. Yeesh, this isn’t rocket science here, bub. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-moral-roots-of-liberals-and-conservatives/530924.md?page=8)