Moral Foundations Theory Puns

For context:

https://moralfoundations.org/

I think this is a good general breakdown but that it can go much farther. First, I would add that both liberals and conservatives want government to do good things, and abstain from doing bad things, but they have a different emphasis on the good/bad and sometimes have different definitions of "good and bad" depending upon their personal morality.

Aaaaand, speaking of personal morality...

If anyone wants to learn about the differences in "moral foundations" between liberals and conservatives I would very highly recommend reading Jonathan Haidt's papers on the subject. He is a sociology professor and researcher who developed the "5-factor theory of moral foundations." These moral factors were developed based on some truly massive surveys carried out in almost every country in the world to suss out what moral considerations were truly global to humanity and weed out the local variations. They have been rigorously confirmed in multiple studies so it's a pretty safe bet that this is how human morality really works.

You can learn about it and take a test to determine your own moral foundations HERE.

The actual foundations/dichotomies are:

Care -vs- Harm,

Fairness -vs- Cheating,

Loyalty -vs- Betrayal,

Authority -vs- Subversion, and

Sanctity -vs- Degradation.

Generally speaking, conservatives hold all 5 moral foundations in roughly equal regard with a higher regard for Authority and Loyalty.

Liberals tend to be much more concerned with Care and Fairness while being less concerned for Authority.

There are other moral foundations that are not included in the 5-factor model because they were not found to be universal. A very interesting case is found with American-style Libertarians.

Libertarians tend to care exclusively about a sixth axis named Liberty -vs- Oppression. Left-libertarians are more focused on Liberty as a social value, while right-libertarians focus more on Liberty as a personal value. You can read the research paper on that subject here.

Here's the Wikipedia article: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Moral_foundations_theory

This is Haidt's book on the topic: [The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11324722-the-righteous-mind

Recently, while I was watching few youtube video about ethical theory. I found a theory about psychological behaviour called Moral Foundational Theory (MFT). A theory proposed by Jonathan Haidt and other that supposed to explain moral reasoning. The theory itself contain 6 value that become the foundation of moral reasoning. And I think to myself, it is not basically element of Harmony with 6 Value?

The value is Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority and purity. And I think it is correspondent with 6 element of Harmony and the behaviour of Mane 6. Let me Explain.

Care : Kindness (Fluttershy)

Care is the opposite of harm. Explain itself.

Fair : Generosity (Rarity)

This is need to be explain further. Generosity is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. The depiction of Generosity is when Rarity find that the other find himself in disadvantage position, Rarity will sacrifice herself to make it just.

Loyalty : Loyalty (Rainbow Dash)

Nuff said

Purity : Honesty (Applejack)

Purity is notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. we can also say that purity is unity of form. Meanwhile Honesty means uniformity of what we say, feel and do. A pure noble way of live Applejack is the most traditional pony, a pure form of living. We can also explain why Applejack do not understand Rarity obsession on fashion. Applejack can see fashion as dishonest or not purely practical.

Liberty : Laughter (Pinkie Pie)

Laughter is sign of freedom. Comedy only can happen if we allowed to transgress the rules, either it is grammatical rules or even common morality (As we see in dark comedy). Pinkie Pie also have showed high degree of freedom. Even freedom in her own cartoon medium by transgressing 4th wall.

Authority : Magic(Friendship) (Twilight Sparkle)

Authority is virtues of leadership and followership. Twilight Sparkle basically idolize a Technocratic monarch and even in the end being a supreme ruler herself. Magic is pure power in Equestria. It is military, technology, and social might. Twilight Sparkle Journey is a journey of competence in magic/friendship (power). She learn that true Magic is Friendship. Friendship(Magic) later become her source of Authority by her competence in magic (friendship).

Afterword.

I think MLP gen 4 have very compelling story telling because it have very well thought and balance foundation. They have balance the value that associated with the conservat

A few months ago, I got to write down a philosophical essay to condense my philosophical beliefs, and I started in a Descartian "I think, therefore I am" style, where I tried to build my beliefs from the ground up. As it happens, I am an epistemic nihilist (i.e. I do not believe in absolute truths), and as a direct corollary, am also a moral relativist (i.e. I do not believe in absolute moral guidelines). In that sense, I largely agree with Alex's views on morality -- although I think I rely more on neuroscience and psychology than he does (cf: Who's in Charge, cf: Thinking Fast & Slow, cf: Moral Foundation Theory).

For my essay, I took a different approach to tackling the apparent nihilism of these positions by using something I called an "axiological map," or a hierarchy of high-level axioms, more or less in logical order.

The purpose of this exercise, according to an Analytic Philosophy perspective, was to clarify my own beliefs both to myself and others by clearly defining the points that I consider to be "reasonable to take for granted," while also keeping these points open for constructive criticism. I'll list the result at the end, but first, the question of this thread.

Moral Foundation Theory:

I've always felt like it was easy to get lost in heated arguments, especially when we spend more time arguing against one another than actually establishing our core beliefs. It's easy to say something like "abortion is fundamentally evil," but even such statements -- full of certainty -- usually fail when presented within extreme moral quandaries. This, to me, shows that we should not be debating the questions, as much as we should try weighting the different factors underlying the question (similarly to how http://moralmachine.mit.edu/ is trying to do). The Moral Foundation Theory suggests that morality can be expressed as a series of moral-like instincts, and that philosophical conversations can inform these instincts.

Rational thinking can lead us to basic moral judgments (e.g. lying is bad), but in realistic situations we are forced to choose between various moral qualities. E.G. In the case of abortion, we have to consider the life of the mother and the possibility that she did not choose this. I feel like Philosophy Tube's video on abortion is a good example of a different philosophical take on the question, which reveals more of the variables implied in the quandary [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2PAa

I recently encountered this philosophical idea and thought it might be a useful tool when creating characters, be it PCs or NPCs.

The idea of Moral Foundations Theory is that there are five foundations upon which all values are built:

- Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm

- Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules; opposite of cheating

- Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of betrayal

- Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority; opposite of subversion

- Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions; opposite of degradation

A sixth foundation (Liberty, opposite of oppression) has also been proposed.

I think these are useful ways to generalize the values that drive a character. Your Robin Hood-esque rogue, for examples, might value Care and Loyalty over all other things, and have no regard at all for Authority. Meanwhile your Paladin might place Authority highest of all, even above Purity. These drives might cause them to make very different decisions when it is revealed that their King is engaging in evil behaviour that is threatening the populace.

For people like myself who don't have a very well honed ability to take on the roles of characters easily, this seems like an easy way to determine what decisions a character might make, especially if you're making your character up on the fly and don't have a lot of time to think about what makes them tick.

I think these videos, and the studies it points at should maybe be in the sidebar, because it answers the following :

• What are the possible motivations and goals of different political belief systems?

• Why is nationalism (or tribalism) preferred by some but not others?

• Short clear version : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3PfjYdY0Ck

• Longer explained version : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

• Wikipedia article : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

I am "Liberal", I enjoy learning and science. Religion has fucked me and keeps pushing me in the blue pill direction in most cases so I mentally deconstructed it and found it lacking. Without religion many things are no longer sacred. So much becomes pure nonsense.

So I pose a question what does redpill care about "Authority", "In Group", and "Purity"

I think theredpill reddit sidebar speaks for itself a bit, respect the older redpills, dont talk about redpill, ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT! Yet goverment is ran for pressing down a true man for womens gains in the long term, go your own way you dont need a group to validate you, fuck as many women as you like dont get married!

So where are we as a whole? I am only asking.

All tests so far have been tiny and not blind experiments. These ones could be slightly larger, on a chain where the ethics of attacking and exploiting bugs is seen as the norm.

I suspect most of you have brushed up against Moral Foundations Theory (MCF) in the past couple of years, but I think it is well worth reading this fantastic review on the topic:

Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism

Depending on who we are addressing, we should probably be focusing on different moral dimensions.

Conservative LDS members are (likely) not going to be swayed by the same moral arguments as more liberal members. I think this explains why (I would wager) certain demographics are influenced more by the CES letter than others, for instance.

Where do the appeals in the CES letter come down in the six moral dimensions? Can we craft some documents that will resonate better with conservative LDS members (i.e., a stronger emphasis on the morals of loyalty, authority, and sanctity?)

edit: softened some of my unsubstantiated statements

edit2: Was thinking through it and realized that the CES letter does a couple of things really well according to the 3 morals that conservatives better relate with (loyalty, authority, and sanctity):

• loyalty: Jeremy was faithful and dedicated and the Church and its leaders betrayed that trust by hiding info.
• authority: Jeremy keeps appealing to the Brethren (those with ultimate authority in the group) to answer these issues and won't really accept FAIR answers (what authority do they have!)

It doesn't do as well with sanctity, I think, because he inadvertently denigrates the Mormon version of God (e.g., "I’m asked to believe in not only a part-time racist god and a part-time polygamous god but a part-time psychopathic schizophrenic one as well")

Are you interested in sharing your thoughts on political views, moral values, and mental health attitudes in an anonymous survey being conducted at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU REB #2021-34), in British Columbia, Canada? Anyone who is a resident of Canada or the United States and 18+ may participate in the study. It will take approximately 15 minutes. Click the following link to view the consent form and survey:

https://kpupsychology.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6Amsw5AfzelnjIa

Just finished re-reading The Righteous Mind, his layman's introduction to the theory, and I find it very compelling and applicable to what I do (political economy/political science), but since I don't know much psychology I'm not in a good position to evaluate his claims. What has the response been among psychologists?

https://moralfoundations.org/

Asking on several political subs so I can get a range of answers.

Are you interested in sharing your thoughts on political views, moral values, and mental health attitudes in an anonymous survey being conducted at Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU REB #2021-34), in British Columbia, Canada? Anyone who is a resident of Canada or the United States and 18+ may participate in the study. It will take approximately 15 minutes. Click the following link to view the consent form and survey:

https://kpupsychology.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6Amsw5AfzelnjIa