Two Differing Moralities: The Roots of Our Political Divide

WEBVTT
00:00:04.139 --> 00:00:08.179
Welcome to the Unity Forum, a cross -partisan
00:00:08.179 --> 00:00:11.720
program dedicated to fostering reasoned discourse
00:00:11.720 --> 00:00:17.160
in a more open society. In each episode, we talk
00:00:17.160 --> 00:00:20.300
with well -established experts to provide insight
00:00:20.300 --> 00:00:24.179
on recent events, elevate civil dialogue, and
00:00:24.179 --> 00:00:27.579
encourage greater mutual understanding on social,
00:00:27.760 --> 00:00:34.479
economic, and legal issues. Our host is Chris
00:00:34.479 --> 00:00:38.219
Malone, founder of Fidelum Group and author of
00:00:38.219 --> 00:00:41.500
the award -winning book, The Human Brand, How
00:00:41.500 --> 00:00:44.619
We Relate to People, Products, and Companies.
00:00:51.840 --> 00:00:54.619
Welcome, and hello. I'm Chris Malone, and I'll
00:00:54.619 --> 00:00:56.840
be your host for today's discussion. Thank you
00:00:56.840 --> 00:00:59.780
for joining us. Our guest today is Dr. Ronnie
00:00:59.780 --> 00:01:02.939
Janoff -Bullman. Professor Emerita in the Department
00:01:02.939 --> 00:01:05.939
of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University
00:01:05.939 --> 00:01:09.120
of Massachusetts Amherst. She's a renowned expert
00:01:09.120 --> 00:01:12.560
in both social and moral psychology. Her career
00:01:12.560 --> 00:01:15.060
is framed by two thought -provoking books. The
00:01:15.060 --> 00:01:18.459
first, published in 1992, Shattered Assumptions
00:01:18.459 --> 00:01:21.180
Towards a New Psychology of Trauma, established
00:01:21.180 --> 00:01:23.159
the seminal theory explaining the psychological
00:01:23.159 --> 00:01:26.299
impact of victimization. Her most recent book,
00:01:26.359 --> 00:01:30.239
published in 2023, The Two Moralities, Conservatives,
00:01:30.260 --> 00:01:32.280
Liberals, and the Roots of Our Political Divide,
00:01:32.299 --> 00:01:35.000
details a new framework based on fundamental
00:01:35.000 --> 00:01:38.200
human approach and avoidance motivations to explain
00:01:38.200 --> 00:01:41.420
why the moral aspects of liberalism and conservatism
00:01:41.420 --> 00:01:44.730
often seem so profoundly at odds. She earned
00:01:44.730 --> 00:01:47.549
her PhD from Northwestern University and is a
00:01:47.549 --> 00:01:49.890
highly decorated scholar, having received major
00:01:49.890 --> 00:01:52.049
recognition for her contributions, including
00:01:52.049 --> 00:01:54.590
the Morton Deutsch Award from the International
00:01:54.590 --> 00:01:57.450
Society for Justice Research. Welcome to the
00:01:57.450 --> 00:02:00.349
Unity Forum, Rani. Thank you, Chris. Good to
00:02:00.349 --> 00:02:03.409
be here. So I really enjoyed reading your book.
00:02:03.510 --> 00:02:06.030
And in the opening words of The Two Moralities,
00:02:06.030 --> 00:02:07.930
you shared an interesting kind of historical
00:02:07.930 --> 00:02:10.650
antidote that I had not heard before about the
00:02:10.650 --> 00:02:13.250
origin of the terms left ring and white ring.
00:02:13.370 --> 00:02:14.969
And I was wondering if you could please recap
00:02:14.969 --> 00:02:16.509
that for listeners. I think they might find it
00:02:16.509 --> 00:02:19.150
interesting. Sure. And I want to thank all the
00:02:19.150 --> 00:02:21.569
listeners that are joining us today as well.
00:02:22.569 --> 00:02:26.830
So in the summer of 1789, during the very early
00:02:26.830 --> 00:02:31.340
days of the French Revolution. The National Assembly,
00:02:31.659 --> 00:02:33.919
the new National Assembly, met to decide on the
00:02:33.919 --> 00:02:37.280
powers of the king. Now, a particularly contentious
00:02:37.280 --> 00:02:40.020
issue at the time was, should the king have veto
00:02:40.020 --> 00:02:43.400
power over the National Assembly or not? And
00:02:43.400 --> 00:02:48.360
it turns out that the way people sat made a difference,
00:02:48.400 --> 00:02:51.639
because the people who supported the royalist
00:02:51.639 --> 00:02:54.139
position, wanting to give the king the veto power,
00:02:54.379 --> 00:02:57.099
sat on the right, to the right of the National
00:02:57.099 --> 00:03:00.729
Assembly president. Those who did not want to
00:03:00.729 --> 00:03:03.509
give the king veto power sat to the left. And
00:03:03.509 --> 00:03:07.409
the French newspapers at the time essentially
00:03:07.409 --> 00:03:10.189
described, used this seating division to describe
00:03:10.189 --> 00:03:13.250
the political differences between these groups,
00:03:13.449 --> 00:03:16.009
with one supporting tradition and the status
00:03:16.009 --> 00:03:18.689
quo, that is the right, and the left supporting
00:03:18.689 --> 00:03:25.219
change and reform. Physical representation has
00:03:25.219 --> 00:03:28.360
actually been used as a metaphor for our political
00:03:28.360 --> 00:03:30.719
distinctions and differences since that time,
00:03:30.800 --> 00:03:32.620
several hundred years now, right? More than 200
00:03:32.620 --> 00:03:35.819
years. And I do want to just add one other thing,
00:03:35.860 --> 00:03:39.379
taking advantage of my old elderly status here,
00:03:39.500 --> 00:03:45.219
just to point out that I am old enough to remember
00:03:45.219 --> 00:03:49.620
when conservatives, there were conservatives
00:03:49.620 --> 00:03:53.849
who were moderate and liberal. like Nelson Rockefeller,
00:03:53.909 --> 00:03:58.210
Jacob Javits. And there were liberals who were
00:03:58.210 --> 00:04:01.169
quite conservative, George Wallace, Strom Thurmond.
00:04:01.310 --> 00:04:04.090
So there happened to have been diversity within
00:04:04.090 --> 00:04:07.729
party, ideological diversity within party. Today,
00:04:08.030 --> 00:04:11.030
I mean, this seemingly unbridgeable chasm, more
00:04:11.030 --> 00:04:14.969
than the National Assembly aisle, is in part
00:04:14.969 --> 00:04:17.829
due, I think, to the fact that there's this monotonic
00:04:17.829 --> 00:04:23.269
alignment of party. and political ideology, which
00:04:23.269 --> 00:04:25.290
has not certainly always been the case here.
00:04:25.649 --> 00:04:28.649
Right. Well, in your book, you talk about and
00:04:28.649 --> 00:04:32.490
share a framework of both prescriptive and prescriptive
00:04:32.490 --> 00:04:35.149
morality, which kind of forms the basis of these
00:04:35.149 --> 00:04:36.629
two moralities in the book title. I was wondering
00:04:36.629 --> 00:04:38.610
if you could kind of explain for listeners what
00:04:38.610 --> 00:04:40.370
that, you know, how this left -wing and right
00:04:40.370 --> 00:04:42.470
-wing stuff, you know, has now been manifested
00:04:42.470 --> 00:04:44.529
in these two different types of moralities and
00:04:44.529 --> 00:04:46.209
how it all connects together. It's very interesting.
00:04:46.709 --> 00:04:52.279
Okay. So I... I began with the most fundamental
00:04:52.279 --> 00:04:55.459
distinction in psychology and motivation, actually,
00:04:55.620 --> 00:04:58.259
approach avoidance. All of us know that much
00:04:58.259 --> 00:05:01.639
of our behavior is based in wanting to approach
00:05:01.639 --> 00:05:04.839
the good and avoid the bad. Very, very simple
00:05:04.839 --> 00:05:08.160
distinction. Now, I applied this distinction
00:05:08.160 --> 00:05:12.060
to morality. Now, I came up with a three by two
00:05:12.060 --> 00:05:15.699
model that has to do with what the target is,
00:05:15.759 --> 00:05:17.889
whether we're thinking about ourselves. whether
00:05:17.889 --> 00:05:20.449
we're thinking about specific other people, which
00:05:20.449 --> 00:05:22.990
I think about the interpersonal domain, or society,
00:05:23.209 --> 00:05:27.029
the group. But in all cases, what I want to say
00:05:27.029 --> 00:05:30.810
is that there are two different forms of morality
00:05:30.810 --> 00:05:35.449
that map onto approach and avoidance. And quite
00:05:35.449 --> 00:05:39.470
simply, they look like harm, don't harm. If we
00:05:39.470 --> 00:05:42.589
think about the sort of the major proscriptions
00:05:42.589 --> 00:05:44.889
and prescriptions of morality, don't harm others,
00:05:45.050 --> 00:05:47.480
don't lie, steal, over -benefit yourself. So
00:05:47.480 --> 00:05:50.639
don't harm and help others. So you think about
00:05:50.639 --> 00:05:56.500
harming and helping as sort of the primary mode
00:05:56.500 --> 00:06:02.000
or modes of thinking about morality. Now, prescription
00:06:02.000 --> 00:06:05.740
is about what we should do. We should be helping
00:06:05.740 --> 00:06:09.420
others, right? We want to move forward, provide
00:06:09.420 --> 00:06:12.740
for the well -being of other people. Proscriptive
00:06:12.740 --> 00:06:17.740
morality is based on the not harming, okay? Don't
00:06:17.740 --> 00:06:20.500
harm, don't steal, et cetera, et cetera. And
00:06:20.500 --> 00:06:26.699
in that simple interpersonal domain, when we're
00:06:26.699 --> 00:06:28.579
dealing with other people, there really aren't
00:06:28.579 --> 00:06:30.199
differences between liberals and conservatives.
00:06:30.620 --> 00:06:32.240
You know, liberals and conservatives all believe
00:06:32.240 --> 00:06:35.279
in helping and not harming, sort of the basic
00:06:35.279 --> 00:06:39.660
rudiments of group living, essentially. And by
00:06:39.660 --> 00:06:41.420
the way, I want to make a case. I think there
00:06:41.420 --> 00:06:42.699
are people out there probably saying, well, they're
00:06:42.699 --> 00:06:46.250
the same, right? Aren't they? Just with a simple
00:06:46.250 --> 00:06:51.050
example, think of a toddler, okay, with his or
00:06:51.050 --> 00:06:54.490
her toys. Toddlers don't want to take others'
00:06:54.610 --> 00:06:58.170
toys, not harming another. Engage in proscriptive
00:06:58.170 --> 00:07:01.449
morality. That's not the same as sharing their
00:07:01.449 --> 00:07:04.230
toys with others, okay? Those are very different
00:07:04.230 --> 00:07:09.350
behaviors, right? So what I'm most interested
00:07:09.350 --> 00:07:12.250
or became most interested in is the group domain
00:07:12.250 --> 00:07:15.259
for proscriptive and prescriptive morality. and
00:07:15.259 --> 00:07:17.180
what those look like. And in the group context,
00:07:17.339 --> 00:07:20.839
the societal context, which really is the domain
00:07:20.839 --> 00:07:26.519
of politics, liberalism that helping or providing
00:07:26.519 --> 00:07:29.500
morality looks like a social justice morality.
00:07:29.819 --> 00:07:32.180
I've called it social justice morality, providing
00:07:32.180 --> 00:07:35.579
for the well -being of others in society. Proscriptive
00:07:35.579 --> 00:07:39.180
morality is about protecting. Social order morality
00:07:39.180 --> 00:07:42.120
is what I've labeled it. Social order is protecting
00:07:42.120 --> 00:07:45.959
the group from threats. whether internal or external,
00:07:46.220 --> 00:07:49.259
and the desire to maintain stability. So the
00:07:49.259 --> 00:07:53.459
fundamental motives of providing and protecting,
00:07:53.519 --> 00:07:57.779
I think, are still basic to this group domain,
00:07:58.019 --> 00:08:00.420
but they manifest in very different ways. Because
00:08:00.420 --> 00:08:03.139
now we're talking about a social morality, social
00:08:03.139 --> 00:08:06.980
order morality, which has an emphasis on tradition,
00:08:07.259 --> 00:08:12.019
strong leaders, preference for power and authority.
00:08:12.759 --> 00:08:17.740
strict group norms, and often a social hierarchy,
00:08:17.939 --> 00:08:21.300
defined social roles, all of these are in the
00:08:21.300 --> 00:08:26.879
interest of stability and maintenance of a threat
00:08:26.879 --> 00:08:30.040
-free society, quote, protection. Social justice
00:08:30.040 --> 00:08:33.279
is about a caring community, providing for others,
00:08:33.500 --> 00:08:36.639
approaching the good here, improving welfare,
00:08:36.980 --> 00:08:39.980
and with an emphasis on equality, which means
00:08:39.980 --> 00:08:42.769
you are often emphasizing Liberals are often
00:08:42.769 --> 00:08:46.350
emphasizing helping those worse off in a society.
00:08:46.710 --> 00:08:50.370
Now, what's interesting to me about this is these
00:08:50.370 --> 00:08:54.169
two social justice, social order moralities not
00:08:54.169 --> 00:08:58.470
only reflect distinct moralities, both of which
00:08:58.470 --> 00:09:03.029
are legitimate good moralities. We want to live
00:09:03.029 --> 00:09:06.570
in groups where we're protected and are provided
00:09:06.570 --> 00:09:10.789
for. But there ends up being a focus on very,
00:09:10.870 --> 00:09:14.690
very different kinds of government interventions.
00:09:15.029 --> 00:09:19.509
So for liberals, it's really about resource distribution
00:09:19.509 --> 00:09:23.549
primarily. That's the economic domain, providing
00:09:23.549 --> 00:09:27.590
funds or developing programs to focus on health,
00:09:27.750 --> 00:09:30.990
education, safety nets, etc. So there really
00:09:30.990 --> 00:09:34.490
is a government intervention is desired in this
00:09:34.490 --> 00:09:37.610
sort of economic domain, whereas in... traditional
00:09:37.610 --> 00:09:40.409
conservatism, what we have is a focus on the
00:09:40.409 --> 00:09:43.970
social domain, on social rules, traditional rules,
00:09:44.090 --> 00:09:46.610
strict norms that are regarded as a bulwark against
00:09:46.610 --> 00:09:49.470
personal gratification that could sort of interfere
00:09:49.470 --> 00:09:53.570
with stability. We often think of conservatives
00:09:53.570 --> 00:09:56.230
wanting limited government, but of course both
00:09:56.230 --> 00:09:58.250
the left and the right want limited government.
00:09:58.429 --> 00:10:01.730
The left wants it in precisely the domain that
00:10:01.730 --> 00:10:07.940
conservatives want. government intervention,
00:10:08.259 --> 00:10:11.500
right? Stay out of my body, stay out of my bedroom,
00:10:11.639 --> 00:10:16.299
sort of autonomy for social roles and personal
00:10:16.299 --> 00:10:19.840
behaviors. Whereas conservatives now want autonomy
00:10:19.840 --> 00:10:22.019
and freedom primarily in the economic domain,
00:10:22.240 --> 00:10:24.879
which is where liberals want intervention, right?
00:10:25.000 --> 00:10:27.600
The economic domain where conservatives would
00:10:27.600 --> 00:10:34.110
prefer more or less unfettered free market. So
00:10:34.110 --> 00:10:36.710
let me stop there. I think that's just a mouthful.
00:10:36.730 --> 00:10:39.830
And would it be correct to conclude from your
00:10:39.830 --> 00:10:42.830
work that kind of the optimal situation requires
00:10:42.830 --> 00:10:45.750
kind of a balance of both the prescriptive and
00:10:45.750 --> 00:10:48.309
proscriptive, laudable things about both of those,
00:10:48.389 --> 00:10:50.710
and perhaps is the issue the balance versus the
00:10:50.710 --> 00:10:54.429
focus on one end or the other? Yeah, you know,
00:10:54.429 --> 00:10:56.549
for transparency purposes, I should put out there
00:10:56.549 --> 00:10:58.690
that I'm very clearly in the liberal camp, okay?
00:10:59.809 --> 00:11:04.539
But... But I do really think that at a very basic
00:11:04.539 --> 00:11:06.080
level, I think what you're saying is true, that
00:11:06.080 --> 00:11:08.740
there needs to be some kind of balance. I even
00:11:08.740 --> 00:11:12.360
think if you think about a group, you can go
00:11:12.360 --> 00:11:15.399
back to the smallest group, the family, you know,
00:11:15.399 --> 00:11:17.600
or huge groups, you know, large groups like society
00:11:17.600 --> 00:11:23.500
where you need protection and provision of sort
00:11:23.500 --> 00:11:27.539
of care and goods. So I do think at a very basic
00:11:27.539 --> 00:11:31.470
level, societies need both. That doesn't mean
00:11:31.470 --> 00:11:33.549
that the specific policies that are supported
00:11:33.549 --> 00:11:37.970
are the ones that we need. But again, the family.
00:11:38.029 --> 00:11:41.970
Back in the 1960s, Diana Baumrind, who was a
00:11:41.970 --> 00:11:45.149
developmental psychologist, did a great deal
00:11:45.149 --> 00:11:47.110
of work and came up with two dimensions for the
00:11:47.110 --> 00:11:51.090
family. One was demandingness based on control,
00:11:51.309 --> 00:11:53.870
controlling the child, setting boundaries. And
00:11:53.870 --> 00:11:57.070
the other labeled... responsiveness which had
00:11:57.070 --> 00:11:59.250
to do with being attuned to children and responding
00:11:59.250 --> 00:12:03.950
to them and she found and um i should say decades
00:12:03.950 --> 00:12:06.490
of research since then have also found that the
00:12:06.490 --> 00:12:10.629
combination was best that if you had if you over
00:12:10.629 --> 00:12:14.610
emphasized the um demandingness you got authoritarian
00:12:14.610 --> 00:12:17.669
authoritarianism and children did not do very
00:12:17.669 --> 00:12:21.230
well at all and if you over emphasize responsiveness
00:12:21.230 --> 00:12:24.480
you got permissive parenting, and also the children
00:12:24.480 --> 00:12:26.799
didn't do as well. So there was some combination
00:12:26.799 --> 00:12:30.700
that actually was better. So I do actually think
00:12:30.700 --> 00:12:33.340
that too much of one of the other, as much as
00:12:33.340 --> 00:12:36.100
I'd love all the, you know, the policies on the
00:12:36.100 --> 00:12:39.500
left to be the ones we live by, if we had no
00:12:39.500 --> 00:12:43.019
counterweight, probably we would all go too far,
00:12:43.139 --> 00:12:45.320
whether we're on the left or on the right, right?
00:12:45.440 --> 00:12:47.659
So on the right, we would go towards, we're going
00:12:47.659 --> 00:12:50.580
towards it now, authoritarianism. On the left,
00:12:50.919 --> 00:12:53.000
There might be much more social fragmentation
00:12:53.000 --> 00:12:55.940
because there is a kind of emphasis on competing
00:12:55.940 --> 00:13:00.620
identities to get resources. So, yes, I will
00:13:00.620 --> 00:13:03.960
stand in that probably unpopular place and say
00:13:03.960 --> 00:13:07.600
probably I do believe we need both. I do believe
00:13:07.600 --> 00:13:10.399
we know. And in the best of worlds, there could
00:13:10.399 --> 00:13:13.519
be respect for each other and we could work balancing
00:13:13.519 --> 00:13:18.080
things out and have true debates, right? regarding
00:13:18.080 --> 00:13:21.350
the policies and noting that we need both. Right.
00:13:21.610 --> 00:13:23.610
Now, another thing in your book, you cited some
00:13:23.610 --> 00:13:26.450
very interesting research studies that seem to
00:13:26.450 --> 00:13:28.629
suggest that humans kind of psychologically,
00:13:28.629 --> 00:13:30.710
at least in kind of the personal domain, you
00:13:30.710 --> 00:13:32.690
know, stuff that we do ourselves, have a little
00:13:32.690 --> 00:13:35.149
bit more of a tendency towards proscriptive moral
00:13:35.149 --> 00:13:38.629
choices versus prescriptive ones. And you gave
00:13:38.629 --> 00:13:40.029
some examples, you know, if we have to throw
00:13:40.029 --> 00:13:42.149
a switch and decide whether the toddler gets
00:13:42.149 --> 00:13:44.970
hit by the train or the family gets hit by the
00:13:44.970 --> 00:13:47.149
train, we don't want to take any action. Whereas
00:13:47.149 --> 00:13:49.230
we all agree that we should give to charities
00:13:49.230 --> 00:13:51.269
and help them, you know. of the less fortunate
00:13:51.269 --> 00:13:53.549
and so forth, but not everybody finds their way
00:13:53.549 --> 00:13:54.909
to do that. I was wondering if you could explain
00:13:54.909 --> 00:13:59.610
that a little bit further as well. Yeah. The
00:13:59.610 --> 00:14:02.409
proscriptive is very specific. I mean, we find
00:14:02.409 --> 00:14:05.669
out what, you know, if you think about, if you
00:14:05.669 --> 00:14:07.750
go to a religion of the Ten Commandments, you
00:14:07.750 --> 00:14:09.669
know, eight of the ten are what you should not
00:14:09.669 --> 00:14:11.370
do. And they're very specific. Don't lie, don't
00:14:11.370 --> 00:14:13.470
steal, don't do this, don't do that. And it's
00:14:13.470 --> 00:14:16.870
very specific because erring on those is kind
00:14:16.870 --> 00:14:20.480
of really problematic for a society. prescriptive
00:14:20.480 --> 00:14:22.639
the honor i think it's honor your mother and
00:14:22.639 --> 00:14:24.720
i should know that i don't know honor your mother
00:14:24.720 --> 00:14:28.120
if i have your parents um keep the i think it's
00:14:28.120 --> 00:14:32.259
keep the sabbath um those are also very real
00:14:32.259 --> 00:14:34.779
but you know how do you honor your parents people
00:14:34.779 --> 00:14:37.100
know how not to cheat right how do you honor
00:14:37.100 --> 00:14:38.960
your parents how do you you know the keeping
00:14:38.960 --> 00:14:40.519
the sabbath you then have to find out what are
00:14:40.519 --> 00:14:43.580
all the rituals right you know it's kind of interesting
00:14:43.580 --> 00:14:47.960
very early on you find that it's easier to learn
00:14:47.960 --> 00:14:51.200
the proscriptive than the prescriptive. That
00:14:51.200 --> 00:14:53.740
is, so some research by a woman named Christina
00:14:53.740 --> 00:14:56.919
has done a lot of work with young children, where
00:14:56.919 --> 00:14:59.039
she does the do's and the don'ts. Well, even
00:14:59.039 --> 00:15:00.740
think back to the toddlers we were talking about
00:15:00.740 --> 00:15:06.240
earlier who don't share their toys, right? They
00:15:06.240 --> 00:15:09.340
still may not take others' toys, right? The proscriptive
00:15:09.340 --> 00:15:11.710
is easier. Well, she does a lot of that in the
00:15:11.710 --> 00:15:14.649
laboratory and finds that it's, you know, for
00:15:14.649 --> 00:15:16.649
young children, very young children whose behavioral
00:15:16.649 --> 00:15:19.149
repertoires are not already established. It's
00:15:19.149 --> 00:15:21.789
easier to learn proscriptive. Often that's because
00:15:21.789 --> 00:15:26.330
it's more specific. But it's also, you know,
00:15:26.350 --> 00:15:29.070
there may be we have a negativity bias, you know,
00:15:29.070 --> 00:15:33.629
psychologically. OK, we focus. Anyway, what I
00:15:33.629 --> 00:15:36.169
should say is when we become adults, though,
00:15:36.289 --> 00:15:38.570
much of a behavioral repertoire is already established.
00:15:40.120 --> 00:15:42.779
We still know we're not supposed to cheat or
00:15:42.779 --> 00:15:46.139
lie or steal or kill people. That is always wrong.
00:15:46.460 --> 00:15:49.340
Peter Singer and Unger and great moral philosophers
00:15:49.340 --> 00:15:52.460
who are dealing with what is prescriptive, they
00:15:52.460 --> 00:15:53.980
don't talk about it this way, but what would
00:15:53.980 --> 00:15:57.700
be prescriptive immorality, raise the same question
00:15:57.700 --> 00:16:01.159
you do, as would I. How far does prescriptive
00:16:01.159 --> 00:16:04.840
morality go? So they bring up the case of the
00:16:04.840 --> 00:16:07.690
trolley. trolley problem with the Bugatti, a
00:16:07.690 --> 00:16:10.070
very fancy car that I had never heard of, by
00:16:10.070 --> 00:16:13.509
the way, on one trolley track and a child on
00:16:13.509 --> 00:16:16.850
the other. And should you, in fact, if the trolley
00:16:16.850 --> 00:16:19.710
is moving down the track, should you flick the
00:16:19.710 --> 00:16:22.889
switch so the trolley goes to the Bugatti and
00:16:22.889 --> 00:16:25.269
destroys the car as opposed to kills the child?
00:16:25.409 --> 00:16:29.049
And all of us would certainly agree that it would
00:16:29.049 --> 00:16:32.259
be horrendously immoral not to do that. But as
00:16:32.259 --> 00:16:34.820
they point out, and I want to point out, is we
00:16:34.820 --> 00:16:37.720
are all living that life because, or not all
00:16:37.720 --> 00:16:39.620
of us, but those of us who are comfortable enough
00:16:39.620 --> 00:16:44.120
to eat, have a home, be comfortable. If you have
00:16:44.120 --> 00:16:47.419
extra money, you should have an obligation, they
00:16:47.419 --> 00:16:51.580
believe, to support those who are living in poverty,
00:16:51.720 --> 00:16:56.700
right? Now, is that an obligation? So that's
00:16:56.700 --> 00:16:59.960
this whole question of where do prescriptive...
00:17:02.030 --> 00:17:05.549
morals, where's the bar for you, right? But that's
00:17:05.549 --> 00:17:07.130
right. But I think it's an interesting question.
00:17:07.289 --> 00:17:09.430
These differ, the two moralities differ along
00:17:09.430 --> 00:17:12.190
a number of dimensions. Yeah. And I think it's
00:17:12.190 --> 00:17:13.690
also notable, you mentioned this in passing,
00:17:13.769 --> 00:17:15.539
but that, you know, it seems that most of the
00:17:15.539 --> 00:17:17.599
major religions, whether it's Christianity, Judaism,
00:17:18.079 --> 00:17:21.900
Islam, even Buddhism, all advocate for both prescriptive
00:17:21.900 --> 00:17:24.240
and proscriptive moral teachings, essentially.
00:17:24.440 --> 00:17:27.660
And is that, you know, in human societies and
00:17:27.660 --> 00:17:30.680
civilizations, is that kind of fundamental? And
00:17:30.680 --> 00:17:34.259
is that kind of where some of our political leanings
00:17:34.259 --> 00:17:39.400
come from? I guess I think we'd have these differences,
00:17:39.440 --> 00:17:41.819
political differences, whether we had religion
00:17:41.819 --> 00:17:47.240
or not. But I do think... I should start out
00:17:47.240 --> 00:17:49.579
with, I'm a social psychologist. I believe very
00:17:49.579 --> 00:17:52.980
strongly in the notion that we are social animals.
00:17:53.200 --> 00:17:56.000
Despite all the emphasis on individualism today,
00:17:56.079 --> 00:17:58.799
we are fundamentally social. We live in groups.
00:17:58.940 --> 00:18:00.920
There are advantages to living in groups. And
00:18:00.920 --> 00:18:04.839
the only way to survive and thrive as groups
00:18:04.839 --> 00:18:10.000
or in groups is by developing some moral system.
00:18:13.849 --> 00:18:16.289
Every group knows you shouldn't harm others.
00:18:16.430 --> 00:18:19.029
This is by virtue of living together. We learn
00:18:19.029 --> 00:18:21.630
you can't harm others, and you need to help others
00:18:21.630 --> 00:18:25.049
in need, right? So I think that is fundamental
00:18:25.049 --> 00:18:30.809
to being a social animal. And by the way, primatologists
00:18:30.809 --> 00:18:35.230
believe that it exists in primate cultures, you
00:18:35.230 --> 00:18:39.279
know, cultures, primate groups. Now, religion,
00:18:39.400 --> 00:18:42.000
though, I think you're quite right in the sense
00:18:42.000 --> 00:18:44.279
that religions are, I think they're cultural
00:18:44.279 --> 00:18:48.839
creations that do reinforce morality, right?
00:18:49.099 --> 00:18:52.119
It's a moral authority for many, many people.
00:18:52.720 --> 00:18:55.920
But it is not the case that people who are not
00:18:55.920 --> 00:19:00.339
religious aren't moral. Actually, there are some
00:19:00.339 --> 00:19:02.480
very interesting studies people might want to
00:19:02.480 --> 00:19:05.220
know about, which is... It is true that people
00:19:05.220 --> 00:19:08.619
who are religious are more giving and benevolent
00:19:08.619 --> 00:19:12.039
towards their own group. But they are more prejudiced
00:19:12.039 --> 00:19:14.380
and less giving and less benevolent to those
00:19:14.380 --> 00:19:16.579
who are not in the religious group. Which, by
00:19:16.579 --> 00:19:21.000
the way, echoes our political divisions. So religion
00:19:21.000 --> 00:19:23.539
ends up being a social identity or a tribal identity
00:19:23.539 --> 00:19:26.740
like others, right? But that's not to say also,
00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:30.759
Chris, that as we've seen in the United States,
00:19:30.779 --> 00:19:33.380
that religions, and there are liberal and conservative,
00:19:34.110 --> 00:19:37.269
denominations, right, that religions have frequently
00:19:37.269 --> 00:19:42.910
joined with political groups to increase the
00:19:42.910 --> 00:19:45.750
clout of one or the other or both. And certainly
00:19:45.750 --> 00:19:48.470
the religious right right now is a very powerful
00:19:48.470 --> 00:19:53.660
element of conservatism. So given all this, you
00:19:53.660 --> 00:19:55.539
know, our aim with the Unity Forum series is
00:19:55.539 --> 00:19:58.519
to help bridge divides between us. And so given
00:19:58.519 --> 00:20:00.359
what you have learned and based on your model,
00:20:00.420 --> 00:20:03.000
what would you think that liberals ought to know
00:20:03.000 --> 00:20:05.240
about the moral psychology of conservatives and
00:20:05.240 --> 00:20:07.539
then vice versa? What do you think would be important
00:20:07.539 --> 00:20:10.000
for conservatives to understand about the morality
00:20:10.000 --> 00:20:12.119
of liberals to find more common ground and understanding
00:20:12.119 --> 00:20:18.109
between us? We need to know that both are. grounded
00:20:18.109 --> 00:20:20.950
in morality. I think too often what happens is
00:20:20.950 --> 00:20:23.910
we see that we have different policy preferences,
00:20:24.069 --> 00:20:27.329
right? And that leads us to often demonize each
00:20:27.329 --> 00:20:29.789
other. But if we begin to understand that these
00:20:29.789 --> 00:20:34.089
policy preferences derive from sort of very different
00:20:34.089 --> 00:20:38.170
moral motives, but both are moral, right? I think
00:20:38.170 --> 00:20:43.079
we could stop the... The attributional demonization
00:20:43.079 --> 00:20:46.599
that automatically, I think, happens when we
00:20:46.599 --> 00:20:49.259
see people on the other side of the political
00:20:49.259 --> 00:20:53.559
spectrum. We say they disagree with us. The demonization
00:20:53.559 --> 00:20:56.279
is remarkable on both sides, by the way. I wish
00:20:56.279 --> 00:20:57.819
I could say it's more on one than the other,
00:20:57.900 --> 00:21:02.000
but research doesn't seem to suggest that. The
00:21:02.000 --> 00:21:06.460
demonization is real. We immediately start to
00:21:06.460 --> 00:21:09.299
distrust. We question motives. We think people
00:21:09.299 --> 00:21:12.019
are ill -intentioned. um because they are on
00:21:12.019 --> 00:21:14.559
the other side of the political spectrum and
00:21:14.559 --> 00:21:17.960
again you know because of this uh monotonic alignment
00:21:17.960 --> 00:21:21.259
of conservatism and party you know the party
00:21:21.259 --> 00:21:25.039
view will belong to now is is kind of really
00:21:25.039 --> 00:21:28.660
a tribal identity um and if you are in the other
00:21:28.660 --> 00:21:31.980
tribe people begin to demonize you now i do think
00:21:31.980 --> 00:21:36.000
um when i talk about conservatism i do sort of
00:21:36.000 --> 00:21:39.740
have much more hope uh for um sort of traditional
00:21:40.619 --> 00:21:43.220
liberalism, conservatism coming together around
00:21:43.220 --> 00:21:46.299
this notion that we are truly concerned about
00:21:46.299 --> 00:21:49.519
the welfare of the country. And I don't, you
00:21:49.519 --> 00:21:52.220
know, the big question is how do you get people
00:21:52.220 --> 00:21:58.079
to believe that we all have, we're moral people.
00:21:58.420 --> 00:22:01.019
One way, of course, you know, is the old social
00:22:01.019 --> 00:22:03.579
psychology contact. You know, we need to be in
00:22:03.579 --> 00:22:06.259
touch with each other. And increasingly, we don't
00:22:06.259 --> 00:22:08.559
even talk to each other. We don't even live near
00:22:08.559 --> 00:22:10.829
each other. You know, it used to be the old contact
00:22:10.829 --> 00:22:14.390
hypothesis in psychology where, you know, you
00:22:14.390 --> 00:22:17.029
put two groups together, particularly face to
00:22:17.029 --> 00:22:18.650
face, face to face interactions are important.
00:22:18.930 --> 00:22:21.170
You begin to understand that, yes, you both care
00:22:21.170 --> 00:22:23.430
about your kids or your grandparents. You both
00:22:23.430 --> 00:22:26.970
care about schools and education. You understand
00:22:26.970 --> 00:22:29.769
the other's humanity. So there's a lot more sort
00:22:29.769 --> 00:22:33.069
of generosity in interpreting what the other
00:22:33.069 --> 00:22:35.829
person's doing. I do think the big shift in this
00:22:35.829 --> 00:22:39.220
country now, even geographically. Where we live
00:22:39.220 --> 00:22:42.880
means you often don't even meet people on the
00:22:42.880 --> 00:22:45.920
other side. So, you know, my mantra would be
00:22:45.920 --> 00:22:50.940
try to talk to others, right? But this is a big
00:22:50.940 --> 00:22:54.630
ask, a very big ask, Chris. Yeah. Yeah. Well,
00:22:54.650 --> 00:22:56.390
so, you know, what you mentioned about how we
00:22:56.390 --> 00:22:57.930
often don't meet each other and it's very easy
00:22:57.930 --> 00:22:59.630
to demonize one another and so forth. That makes
00:22:59.630 --> 00:23:01.430
me, of course, think of what are the role of
00:23:01.430 --> 00:23:03.849
broadcast and social media and kind of amplifying
00:23:03.849 --> 00:23:07.210
those kind of misreading or misjudgment to the
00:23:07.210 --> 00:23:09.730
moral motives of either side or what have you.
00:23:09.930 --> 00:23:11.869
Any thoughts on how we could kind of start to
00:23:11.869 --> 00:23:14.170
bridge the divide there? Is it, as you say, you
00:23:14.170 --> 00:23:15.890
know, get off the social media and start to talk
00:23:15.890 --> 00:23:17.650
to people in person or are there other approaches
00:23:17.650 --> 00:23:19.940
that might work as well? Well, if we could develop
00:23:19.940 --> 00:23:23.339
an independent journalism, I mean, it's getting
00:23:23.339 --> 00:23:26.079
worse and worse. And I don't have to tell people
00:23:26.079 --> 00:23:29.140
listening that, you know, we are now dealing
00:23:29.140 --> 00:23:34.160
with the angriest voices, the most distractions,
00:23:34.339 --> 00:23:38.319
the angriest, nastiest voices get, you know,
00:23:38.319 --> 00:23:42.839
they get. the attention, right? You know, we
00:23:42.839 --> 00:23:45.660
know politicians even, you know, we have evidence
00:23:45.660 --> 00:23:48.259
that Republican politicians are far more conservative
00:23:48.259 --> 00:23:51.240
than Republican voters in general, right? And
00:23:51.240 --> 00:23:54.579
on social media, what we're finding, both on
00:23:54.579 --> 00:23:56.799
the left and right, we are, I mean, I think we're
00:23:56.799 --> 00:23:58.960
in trouble. Again, my age, I remember Walter
00:23:58.960 --> 00:24:02.039
Cronkite. Many people probably never even heard
00:24:02.039 --> 00:24:03.920
of him, but Walter Cronkite was on the evening
00:24:03.920 --> 00:24:06.640
news. Everybody watched the evening news. You
00:24:06.640 --> 00:24:08.240
know, there were three stations. Most people
00:24:08.240 --> 00:24:10.819
watched Walter Cronkite. I could not have told
00:24:10.819 --> 00:24:13.819
you what his politics were. I have no idea where
00:24:13.819 --> 00:24:16.420
it was, left, right, middle, anything. People
00:24:16.420 --> 00:24:20.960
watched him. He presented the facts. You know,
00:24:20.980 --> 00:24:22.720
we now have, we don't even know, nobody even
00:24:22.720 --> 00:24:28.359
knows what the facts are. So we've always believed
00:24:28.359 --> 00:24:30.819
that, you know, putting things out in the public
00:24:30.819 --> 00:24:33.299
sphere is the healthiest way to get through things
00:24:33.299 --> 00:24:37.079
because we will debate them, et cetera, et cetera.
00:24:37.180 --> 00:24:39.890
We don't have a public sphere now. in which that
00:24:39.890 --> 00:24:42.369
happens. And that's frightening to me. That really
00:24:42.369 --> 00:24:44.690
is frightening. So first we have to get facts.
00:24:44.750 --> 00:24:46.329
We have to have a public sphere. Where is that?
00:24:47.950 --> 00:24:51.069
The development of independent journalism would
00:24:51.069 --> 00:24:53.890
be very helpful, right? Very, very helpful. And
00:24:53.890 --> 00:24:56.690
I think everybody's probably getting them sent.
00:24:56.869 --> 00:24:58.549
You have the ink, you're a public citizen, you're
00:24:58.549 --> 00:25:05.710
hearing lots of TPM, but more than 60 % of the
00:25:05.710 --> 00:25:08.559
people get their news from social media. Would
00:25:08.559 --> 00:25:11.960
regulating that help? I don't know. You know,
00:25:11.980 --> 00:25:17.359
this is, we could also go for the social psychological
00:25:17.359 --> 00:25:19.400
belief that, you know, there has to be a major
00:25:19.400 --> 00:25:21.920
challenge where the antagonists have to work
00:25:21.920 --> 00:25:25.700
together, right? What is this? Is this some Martian
00:25:25.700 --> 00:25:28.640
invasion? Some AI taking over humanity? You know,
00:25:28.680 --> 00:25:31.200
some catastrophic thing that could happen? Yes,
00:25:31.200 --> 00:25:33.140
that might help. I'd hate that to be the way
00:25:33.140 --> 00:25:38.549
we get together, right? They also seem so sci
00:25:38.549 --> 00:25:42.910
-fi and unreal. Maybe one party will become so
00:25:42.910 --> 00:25:46.069
extreme that the authoritarianism will be so
00:25:46.069 --> 00:25:49.609
frightening even to people in that party that
00:25:49.609 --> 00:25:51.630
the left and the right can start working together.
00:25:51.690 --> 00:25:54.029
We can't go anywhere unless we work together.
00:25:55.470 --> 00:26:00.180
So I'm hoping that sort of we can. You know,
00:26:00.220 --> 00:26:02.079
one of the things I've had on my mind is this
00:26:02.079 --> 00:26:03.660
notion of, you know, getting people together
00:26:03.660 --> 00:26:05.400
and having conversations. And we are approaching
00:26:05.400 --> 00:26:07.359
the holiday season where many of us will get
00:26:07.359 --> 00:26:09.059
together with members of our family that might
00:26:09.059 --> 00:26:11.359
have differing views and so forth. What advice
00:26:11.359 --> 00:26:14.079
would you offer to us as we think about having
00:26:14.079 --> 00:26:16.240
those conversations and how we might apply these
00:26:16.240 --> 00:26:18.599
insights to conversations we might have with
00:26:18.599 --> 00:26:20.420
family members? Maybe that is a place that those
00:26:20.420 --> 00:26:22.619
conversations to better understand one another
00:26:22.619 --> 00:26:27.279
could start. What do you think? What I would
00:26:27.279 --> 00:26:30.039
say is the best thing probably is not necessarily
00:26:30.039 --> 00:26:32.240
talking about politics, talking about what brings
00:26:32.240 --> 00:26:34.819
you together as a family. You know, I think,
00:26:34.819 --> 00:26:36.420
you know, because if you're with people with
00:26:36.420 --> 00:26:39.559
different political views, you know, you could
00:26:39.559 --> 00:26:42.319
talk about the possibility that, yes, we are
00:26:42.319 --> 00:26:44.619
both coming from a moral place, but you're coming
00:26:44.619 --> 00:26:47.200
from a place that, you know. wants to protect
00:26:47.200 --> 00:26:48.880
the society, and that leads to certain things.
00:26:48.940 --> 00:26:50.420
I come from a place that really wants to provide.
00:26:50.680 --> 00:26:52.680
We need to do both. You could possibly bring
00:26:52.680 --> 00:26:54.980
that up and have a conversation about protecting
00:26:54.980 --> 00:26:58.140
and providing and how we need both. And unfortunately,
00:26:58.339 --> 00:27:01.599
we have different policy preferences, but maybe
00:27:01.599 --> 00:27:03.839
we shouldn't have so much disagreement just based
00:27:03.839 --> 00:27:07.319
on those. We're going to have disagreements,
00:27:07.359 --> 00:27:10.259
but not have those at your dinner table. But
00:27:10.259 --> 00:27:12.099
talk about the underlying motives. I would just
00:27:12.099 --> 00:27:16.900
say, ask for... try to have attributional generosity
00:27:16.900 --> 00:27:21.420
with your family, okay? Just, I know that's very
00:27:21.420 --> 00:27:23.500
difficult when you're sitting with someone that
00:27:23.500 --> 00:27:27.039
you totally disagree with, but that person also
00:27:27.039 --> 00:27:29.259
would probably be a person who would do a lot
00:27:29.259 --> 00:27:31.559
of good things for you if you were in need, right?
00:27:31.700 --> 00:27:35.220
And remembering that our humanity is probably
00:27:35.220 --> 00:27:37.460
more important, right? Right. So that assuming
00:27:37.460 --> 00:27:40.039
positive intent and that from a morality standpoint,
00:27:40.200 --> 00:27:43.200
underlying these two philosophies are positive
00:27:43.200 --> 00:27:45.980
intent, just differing approaches to positive
00:27:45.980 --> 00:27:48.910
intent. Absolutely. So let's take a few questions
00:27:48.910 --> 00:27:51.450
from those listening remotely today. The first
00:27:51.450 --> 00:27:54.470
question is from Paras Bargava. Is there a rural
00:27:54.470 --> 00:27:57.369
-urban divide between proscriptive and prescriptive?
00:27:57.369 --> 00:27:59.509
Do rural folks want to go back in time when things
00:27:59.509 --> 00:28:01.470
were better and urban folks want to further change
00:28:01.470 --> 00:28:03.789
along the path that we have been changing? Is
00:28:03.789 --> 00:28:06.789
there kind of a geographic aspect to things?
00:28:06.910 --> 00:28:08.789
Yes, there is actually a strong geographic aspect
00:28:08.789 --> 00:28:12.230
to, obviously there are people on the left and
00:28:12.230 --> 00:28:14.769
right within both, but we know the collective
00:28:14.769 --> 00:28:20.990
soup. of ideological, of diversity, of color
00:28:20.990 --> 00:28:24.109
and race, color, religion, ethnicity, whatever,
00:28:24.390 --> 00:28:28.769
LGBTQ preferences. You know, in cities, people
00:28:28.769 --> 00:28:30.730
meet others. We were talking earlier about contact.
00:28:30.970 --> 00:28:33.309
We meet lots of others. That matters. It makes
00:28:33.309 --> 00:28:36.250
a huge difference. You know, traditionally, the
00:28:36.250 --> 00:28:38.789
left has always been, liberalism has always been
00:28:38.789 --> 00:28:42.180
present in the cities where trade routes. were,
00:28:42.180 --> 00:28:45.960
you know, were the hubs of trade groups, where
00:28:45.960 --> 00:28:49.039
people met others that weren't like them. In
00:28:49.039 --> 00:28:52.720
rural areas, people tend to see others most like
00:28:52.720 --> 00:28:57.960
themselves, okay? So it not only, it almost reinforces
00:28:57.960 --> 00:29:01.000
a conservative view. One thing we should think
00:29:01.000 --> 00:29:04.359
about, if I, another difference between prescriptive
00:29:04.359 --> 00:29:07.720
and proscriptive, and again, there are many,
00:29:07.839 --> 00:29:11.000
liberalism and conservatism here, let's think.
00:29:11.579 --> 00:29:17.960
is how broadly you, how wide is your moral circle,
00:29:18.319 --> 00:29:20.720
your circle of moral concern? And it turns out
00:29:20.720 --> 00:29:23.079
that liberals have a much wider circle of moral
00:29:23.079 --> 00:29:26.319
concerns and include people that are not like
00:29:26.319 --> 00:29:28.180
them. They're not like them in terms of identity
00:29:28.180 --> 00:29:30.799
as much as conservatives whose moral circle,
00:29:30.880 --> 00:29:33.200
again, will do as much as family and friends,
00:29:33.339 --> 00:29:36.579
but the moral circle does not extend as broadly.
00:29:37.549 --> 00:29:39.910
Part of this you can understand in terms of if
00:29:39.910 --> 00:29:44.549
your idea is your conservatism or your morality
00:29:44.549 --> 00:29:47.990
is based on defending against threats. If you
00:29:47.990 --> 00:29:49.809
have attuned to threats, if you're attuned to
00:29:49.809 --> 00:29:53.269
threats, basically you will be most comfortable
00:29:53.269 --> 00:29:56.369
with people just like you, right? You will be...
00:29:57.900 --> 00:30:00.500
which basically helps account for this sort of
00:30:00.500 --> 00:30:03.819
limited moral concern. You want to be with people
00:30:03.819 --> 00:30:06.700
like yourself. You trust those people most like
00:30:06.700 --> 00:30:12.660
you. They're in your tribe, right? So rural areas,
00:30:12.819 --> 00:30:17.319
unfortunately, by being much less heterogeneous,
00:30:17.420 --> 00:30:24.440
really reinforce this notion of, you know, they
00:30:24.440 --> 00:30:26.670
begin to be more similar. That's who you learn
00:30:26.670 --> 00:30:28.509
to trust. You're not seeing as many different
00:30:28.509 --> 00:30:30.930
people. There's not as much contact with others.
00:30:31.069 --> 00:30:34.410
So they tend to be based in a conservative protect
00:30:34.410 --> 00:30:39.089
notion much more than in cities where you see
00:30:39.089 --> 00:30:41.730
other people. So you can see, you can look at
00:30:41.730 --> 00:30:45.670
any election, look at a presidential election,
00:30:45.869 --> 00:30:48.150
you can go to Texas and the rural areas are all
00:30:48.150 --> 00:30:52.109
conservative and big cities are liberal. You
00:30:52.109 --> 00:30:54.450
know, which is why when we talk about red and
00:30:54.450 --> 00:30:56.970
blue states, it's a little bit problematic because
00:30:56.970 --> 00:31:01.890
big cities in red states tend to be blue. But
00:31:01.890 --> 00:31:05.529
there is this divergence that's very real. Very
00:31:05.529 --> 00:31:07.589
interesting. Thank you. We also have another
00:31:07.589 --> 00:31:09.589
question from Sharon McCarthy. What's of more
00:31:09.589 --> 00:31:11.809
value, highlighting what's different between
00:31:11.809 --> 00:31:17.289
the two groups or what's the same? Well, the
00:31:17.289 --> 00:31:21.059
question, you know. I suppose that really does
00:31:21.059 --> 00:31:24.039
depend on your goals, but it would be great to
00:31:24.039 --> 00:31:26.259
be able to highlight what's the same, which is
00:31:26.259 --> 00:31:30.059
that we are talking about moral people. That's
00:31:30.059 --> 00:31:32.460
where the intent. We are not ill -intentioned.
00:31:32.900 --> 00:31:37.380
Again, the attributional generosity, I think,
00:31:37.380 --> 00:31:43.960
is really, really pretty important. The differences
00:31:43.960 --> 00:31:47.609
are so apparent. to people in terms of the policy
00:31:47.609 --> 00:31:49.690
preferences that if we could start thinking about
00:31:49.690 --> 00:31:52.029
the common humanity and the common morality,
00:31:52.569 --> 00:31:54.700
I think it would be helpful. Well, you mentioned
00:31:54.700 --> 00:31:56.920
two words there that struck me as something I
00:31:56.920 --> 00:31:59.160
like to talk about in a business context, and
00:31:59.160 --> 00:32:01.940
that's this notion of worthy intent. And that
00:32:01.940 --> 00:32:04.579
we often share the idea that the way to form
00:32:04.579 --> 00:32:07.000
a relationship with another person is to demonstrate
00:32:07.000 --> 00:32:10.519
that your intentions are worthy of their trust
00:32:10.519 --> 00:32:12.059
and loyalty, or what we call the principle of
00:32:12.059 --> 00:32:14.400
worthy intent. And so I think that could perhaps
00:32:14.400 --> 00:32:16.420
have application in this context as well. That's
00:32:16.420 --> 00:32:19.180
right. That's right. Yes. Here's a question from
00:32:19.180 --> 00:32:21.480
Roger Booth. Based on the continuum that you've
00:32:21.480 --> 00:32:23.839
described, where would you place libertarians
00:32:23.839 --> 00:32:27.160
and what underlies that worldview? That's a great
00:32:27.160 --> 00:32:30.500
question. And thank you. Liberalism and conservatives
00:32:30.500 --> 00:32:34.500
tend to be are the largest and liberals are high
00:32:34.500 --> 00:32:38.819
on social justice, lower on social order. Conservatives
00:32:38.819 --> 00:32:41.460
are higher on social order and lower on social
00:32:41.460 --> 00:32:45.299
justice. Libertarians actually tend to be low
00:32:45.299 --> 00:32:50.180
on both. Right. So when we were talking earlier,
00:32:50.299 --> 00:32:53.660
I was saying earlier that liberals and conservatives
00:32:53.660 --> 00:32:59.299
differ on the government interventions they prefer,
00:32:59.700 --> 00:33:03.880
right? Both have a preference, either based on
00:33:03.880 --> 00:33:06.819
protection or providing. They want government
00:33:06.819 --> 00:33:11.099
intervention. Libertarians are low on both. Libertarians
00:33:11.099 --> 00:33:14.740
are the group that have no group morality. Now,
00:33:14.740 --> 00:33:15.980
that doesn't mean they're not moral. They're
00:33:15.980 --> 00:33:19.750
very moral. But their morality is based on interpersonal
00:33:19.750 --> 00:33:22.730
morality. Does it harm someone directly or does
00:33:22.730 --> 00:33:28.890
it help them directly? The intervention of government
00:33:28.890 --> 00:33:31.750
should be kept to a minimum. So what's interesting
00:33:31.750 --> 00:33:35.150
about libertarians is they could vote as Democrats
00:33:35.150 --> 00:33:39.390
or Republicans. Typically libertarians are very
00:33:39.390 --> 00:33:42.269
much about an unfettered market. The economic
00:33:42.269 --> 00:33:45.960
domain matters a lot. And so most decide... or
00:33:45.960 --> 00:33:49.779
have over time voted with Republicans, okay,
00:33:49.960 --> 00:33:52.859
with conservatives. But there are libertarians
00:33:52.859 --> 00:33:56.980
who care much more about maintaining autonomy
00:33:56.980 --> 00:34:00.319
and control in the bedroom or, you know, in terms
00:34:00.319 --> 00:34:03.799
of people's own lives, in terms of LGBTQ issues
00:34:03.799 --> 00:34:07.460
or abortion. They would be voting with Democrats.
00:34:08.090 --> 00:34:10.469
There's also a group called communitarians. That
00:34:10.469 --> 00:34:12.949
is a very small group in our society. But those
00:34:12.949 --> 00:34:15.610
tend to be people who are very high on both social
00:34:15.610 --> 00:34:17.809
order and social justice. It's not as if it's
00:34:17.809 --> 00:34:23.550
impossible, right? They believe in restrictions
00:34:23.550 --> 00:34:27.429
on abortion, gay rights, gay marriage, et cetera,
00:34:27.769 --> 00:34:31.710
stem cell research, you name it. But they also
00:34:31.710 --> 00:34:35.789
believe strongly in... benefiting those worse
00:34:35.789 --> 00:34:38.570
off in society, strong social nets. There are
00:34:38.570 --> 00:34:40.829
several religious groups that particularly we
00:34:40.829 --> 00:34:43.849
might define as communitarian. So thank you.
00:34:43.929 --> 00:34:46.070
Very interesting. Here's an anonymous question.
00:34:46.429 --> 00:34:49.289
How should we define protecting society? Some
00:34:49.289 --> 00:34:51.590
people would say eliminating immigrants or people
00:34:51.590 --> 00:34:53.989
of color is protecting society, whereas many
00:34:53.989 --> 00:34:56.489
of us would take great issue with that. How would
00:34:56.489 --> 00:34:59.989
you interpret that? Yeah, I mean, that I think
00:34:59.989 --> 00:35:02.269
is a very good question that, you know, I think
00:35:02.269 --> 00:35:05.909
about protecting society from real threats. Now,
00:35:06.010 --> 00:35:09.150
what's true, what's interesting is for conservatives,
00:35:09.309 --> 00:35:13.250
they do think not allowing immigrants in is about
00:35:13.250 --> 00:35:15.449
protecting society, which is why it's so big,
00:35:15.610 --> 00:35:19.230
it's so largely painted on their palette, you
00:35:19.230 --> 00:35:24.809
know, on their political easel. Protecting in
00:35:24.809 --> 00:35:28.210
general would mean protecting against actual
00:35:28.210 --> 00:35:31.969
threats to the security and well -being of a
00:35:31.969 --> 00:35:37.440
society. For liberals, of course, look at immigration
00:35:37.440 --> 00:35:39.820
very differently. Liberals look at it as providing
00:35:39.820 --> 00:35:42.800
for people who need something. Immigrants come
00:35:42.800 --> 00:35:46.840
here because you don't leave a country easily,
00:35:47.059 --> 00:35:49.960
right? It's very hard to leave a country. They're
00:35:49.960 --> 00:35:53.000
coming for better times, trying to support a
00:35:53.000 --> 00:35:56.639
family, trying to help their children. So there
00:35:56.639 --> 00:36:00.000
are many, many issues where people see them through
00:36:00.000 --> 00:36:03.719
these two different lenses. I do still think
00:36:03.719 --> 00:36:08.800
protecting means trying to preserve what you
00:36:08.800 --> 00:36:12.320
have from something getting worse. And providing
00:36:12.320 --> 00:36:14.840
means trying to move forward to help someone
00:36:14.840 --> 00:36:18.619
get, sort of improve their lives. I think that
00:36:18.619 --> 00:36:22.239
would, you know, so yes, you're exactly right
00:36:22.239 --> 00:36:25.139
in asking, can the same, you didn't ask this,
00:36:25.159 --> 00:36:27.619
but I'm reinterpreting, so forgive me, can the
00:36:27.619 --> 00:36:30.650
same issue be perceived quite differently? according
00:36:30.650 --> 00:36:33.050
to these two moralities? Yes. And I think it's
00:36:33.050 --> 00:36:37.030
very interesting. And it's why we have these
00:36:37.030 --> 00:36:39.909
disagreements, prescriptive and prescriptive
00:36:39.909 --> 00:36:43.650
perspectives take this issue and rip it apart
00:36:43.650 --> 00:36:48.309
at its seams, right? It's very problematic. Got
00:36:48.309 --> 00:36:50.429
it. So we have a few more questions than we'll
00:36:50.429 --> 00:36:52.170
probably get to. So I'm going to have to, unfortunately,
00:36:52.250 --> 00:36:54.769
just pick one before we start to move to close.
00:36:55.230 --> 00:36:58.170
This from Allison Gunn. If bridging isn't possible
00:36:58.170 --> 00:37:01.070
with a group, specifically if the other group
00:37:01.070 --> 00:37:04.070
is actively opposed to the existence of people
00:37:04.070 --> 00:37:06.670
with a certain identity, whether it's race, sexuality,
00:37:06.869 --> 00:37:08.909
religion, et cetera, what are our responsibilities
00:37:08.909 --> 00:37:11.130
when interacting with them? I have thoughts on
00:37:11.130 --> 00:37:12.389
that, but I'd be interested in yours as well.
00:37:17.019 --> 00:37:19.659
We are supposed to be living together in the
00:37:19.659 --> 00:37:22.300
same groups. I think we have an obligation to
00:37:22.300 --> 00:37:26.380
try to change people. I do. How we do that is
00:37:26.380 --> 00:37:33.559
very problematic. Again, I think figuring out
00:37:33.559 --> 00:37:37.219
how you talk to people around common human issues.
00:37:37.480 --> 00:37:40.460
Look, they're all things we care about. trying
00:37:40.460 --> 00:37:43.780
to show that we are all, and that we're all in
00:37:43.780 --> 00:37:46.300
this game together called life, right? I mean,
00:37:46.320 --> 00:37:50.059
we are in this together. I find it very hard
00:37:50.059 --> 00:37:54.199
to deal with people who have, who are not willing
00:37:54.199 --> 00:37:56.820
to accept the existence of others. On the other
00:37:56.820 --> 00:38:00.239
hand, we get nowhere if we're still in this society.
00:38:00.340 --> 00:38:05.039
We get nowhere if we give up. So I don't know.
00:38:05.119 --> 00:38:09.440
I'm not, I feel like. I'm not a minister or a
00:38:09.440 --> 00:38:11.260
rabbi. I think they would have better recommendations
00:38:11.260 --> 00:38:13.880
about this. But I think social psychology would
00:38:13.880 --> 00:38:17.219
say contact is still the best thing we could
00:38:17.219 --> 00:38:19.239
do. I don't know. Chris, do you have thoughts
00:38:19.239 --> 00:38:21.699
about that? I do. I do. So, you know, I think
00:38:21.699 --> 00:38:26.480
we are all at risk at times to dehumanize others.
00:38:26.940 --> 00:38:29.800
or see others of a social group that we are unfamiliar
00:38:29.800 --> 00:38:32.480
with or disagree with or what have you as somehow
00:38:32.480 --> 00:38:35.199
less than human. And when we start to allow ourselves
00:38:35.199 --> 00:38:38.159
to see others as less than human, only bad stuff
00:38:38.159 --> 00:38:41.119
happens. And so even if there are those who might
00:38:41.119 --> 00:38:43.940
say or at the moment believe that some other
00:38:43.940 --> 00:38:47.179
group shouldn't exist, I believe that with greater
00:38:47.179 --> 00:38:49.800
contact, like you have mentioned, greater conversation,
00:38:49.860 --> 00:38:53.469
and often with stories that help. people see
00:38:53.469 --> 00:38:56.469
the good in others, we can actually come to better
00:38:56.469 --> 00:38:59.030
understand one another and be more resistant
00:38:59.030 --> 00:39:01.909
to this idea of allowing ourselves to see others
00:39:01.909 --> 00:39:04.469
as less than human. Right, right. Thank you so
00:39:04.469 --> 00:39:06.269
much, Ronnie. This has really been an insightful
00:39:06.269 --> 00:39:08.170
and thought -provoking conversation as I knew
00:39:08.170 --> 00:39:10.250
it would be. Thank you to our listeners today
00:39:10.250 --> 00:39:12.429
as well for your time and your thoughtful questions.
00:39:12.710 --> 00:39:14.949
And be sure to join us for our next episode of
00:39:14.949 --> 00:39:17.329
Uniform. It's sure to be another enlightening
00:39:17.329 --> 00:39:20.349
and inspiring discussion. Until then, have a
00:39:20.349 --> 00:39:22.190
great rest of your day. Thanks very much, everyone.
00:39:23.690 --> 00:39:26.889
Thanks for listening today. If you enjoyed this
00:39:26.889 --> 00:39:29.510
episode of the Unity Forum, please give it a
00:39:29.510 --> 00:39:33.170
rating, share it with others and join us on Facebook
00:39:33.170 --> 00:39:39.269
at Alumni for Freedom and Democracy. And be sure
00:39:39.269 --> 00:39:42.110
to join us next time for another thought provoking
00:39:42.110 --> 00:39:45.889
discussion on the big ideas shaping our collective
00:39:45.889 --> 00:39:46.389
future.