The Political Divide is a Moral Divide

Brendan Golledge

I revisited Kohlberg's stages of moral development recently. I think leftists are in the preconventional stage of morality, and MAGA are in the conventional stage.

Pre-conventional morality is only concerned with power. People in this stage don't have genuine moral opinions, but only act off of reward and punishment. So, they will do whatever authority tells them to do, no matter how transparently stupid it is. The left must clearly be in this category, because they talk about equality, and then discriminate against white men. They talk about saving the environment, and then burn electric cars. They talk about "justice" and then burn cities and punish good Samaritans. They are for feminism, but refuse to define what a woman is. So, the left has no genuine moral beliefs; all their beliefs are only verbally espoused in order to try to win the approval of other leftists.

I think MAGA is in the conventional stage of morality, which is concerned with law and order. I think "law" could be thought of as "consistent authority. It seems to me that MAGA are still waiting for other people (like Trump) to tell them what to do or to fix things, but at least they can see the inconsistency of the left and reject it.

I heard about a study not long ago ( by Jonathan Haidt) which showed that conservatives have a broader set of values. It also showed that conservatives can model what liberals think, but liberals have no idea what conservatives think and they think that conservatives are just evil. This study would seem to be consistent with the idea I just described that leftists have a lower level of moral development than conservatives. A understanding B and B not understanding A would seem to indicate that A is more developed.

According to Kohlberg, "post-conventional morality" is concerned with personal values. Only a minority of people ever reach this level. These are the only people whose morality is independent of authority, so they are the only people who are capable of taking independent moral action. It seems clear to me that the USA is screwed up in a lot of ways, so if a person hasn't taken unilateral action to improve his life, such as by buying bitcoin or precious metals, using CrowdHealth as an alternative to health insurance, homeschooling their kids, homesteading, starting their own business, expatriating for a better life, or some other such thing, then it is very unlikely that this person has reached the point where they have their own values and can act independently of authority figures. I am not trying to argue that a person must do one or all of the things in this list to be a good person, but that if a person has not taken unilateral action such as this, then one has not yet demonstrated independent moral agency.

Kohlberg received criticism because he found that most women don't progress beyond level 3 (of the 6 sub categories), which is "good boy/good girl" morality, where they are just trying to please people, whereas most men reach level 4 (law and order). I think this makes sense from a biological perspective, because traditionally, women were only responsible for their own families, but the broader society was organized by men. Subjective positive feelings for other people can be sufficient for small scale social organization, but they cannot be used to treat people justly that you do not personally know. Since men had to organize for war/hunting/executing justice, it was necessary that they developed a more impersonal morality, hence most men reaching a law & order level of morality. This gender divide is also reflected in voting patterns.

I think the current political divide in the USA is really a divide in moral development. I don't think it was always this way though, or at least not to this degree. If two people are able to calmly and peacefully make arguments in favor of differing points of view (I understand that this used to happen in US politics), then I'd be inclined to think the difference is likely to come from different experience or intellectual development. But when one side has arguments and the other only has epithets, and then turns immediately to violence when they lose, this is a difference in moral development.

Hanover

I think the current political divide in the USA is really a divide in moral development — Brendan Golledge

I think the polarization of groups is based upon moralizing, meaning it is when one group characterizes the other as immoral simply because they have a different worldview is what leads to the loss of middle ground.

I heard about a study not long ago ( by Jonathan Haidt) which showed that conservatives have a broader set of values. It also showed that conservatives can model what liberals think, but liberals have no idea what conservatives think and they think that conservatives are just evil. This study would seem to be consistent with the idea I just described that leftists have a lower level of moral development than conservatives. A understanding B and B not understanding A would seem to indicate that A is more developed. — Brendan Golledge

Another possibility is that you didn't actually read A Righteous Mind.

I think this makes sense from a biological perspective, because traditionally, women were only responsible for their own families, but the broader society was organized by men. Subjective positive feelings for other people can be sufficient for small scale social organization, but they cannot be used to treat people justly that you do not personally know. Since men had to organize for war/hunting/executing justice, it was necessary that they developed a more impersonal morality, hence most men reaching a law & order level of morality. This gender divide is also reflected in voting patterns. — Brendan Golledge

The first part felt trollish ("the left is morally undeveloped" argument). This part devolved into something worse, not only because I do think it's probably a sincere effort at thought, but it also has that misogyny feel, where men are natural leaders and women followers. It also has the feel of where you spent about 10 mintues thinking about what cavemen must've been like and then arrived at how that must've gotten caught up in the DNA and it's the way of the world now.

AmadeusD

There is more in this post than most commenters are going to give it. But I can already see from the one response, people are not going to be even partially fair to an view-from-above post like this. A shame.

BC

↪Brendan Golledge

I don't find much similarity between your interpretation of the left/right divide and what I understand of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. The idea of stages of moral development is reasonable; Kohlberg's explication may not be altogether reasonable. His view of women's moral development (as opposed to men's moral development) has been criticized. Your interpretation is decidedly not reasonable.

One thing consistent across morals and politics is inconsistency. People may profess a moral value and then act against it. Why? Because behavior is not guided by simple rules. Rather, our algorithms guiding our behavior are complicated. That said, we tend to behave in somewhat consistent ways.

at least they can see the inconsistency of the left and reject it. — Brendan Golledge

And the left can see the inconsistency of the right and reject it.

Pre-conventional morality is only concerned with power. People in this stage don't have genuine moral opinions, but only act off of reward and punishment. So, they will do whatever authority tells them to do, no matter how transparently stupid it is. — Brendan Golledge

Kohlberg assigns pre-conventional morality to infancy and pre-school. Can we say that adolescents and adults operate at this level? I don't think so. Some people claim that they performed acts deemed to be immoral because they were "only following orders". It's a cop-out under the duress of an indictment. The indicted made a series of moral decisions which placed them in the position of being ordered to perform immoral acts.

Morality has to account for the fact of power at all stages and from all POVs. Conservatives who say "I voted for Trump but I didn't vote for this!" are rethinking the implications of Trump's power. The left has also had to account for the fact of power. Having the power to allow public drug use (thinking here of highly addictive drugs like narcotics, meth, cocaine, fentanyl) has brought on intolerable behavioral problems, high levels of homelessness, and social dysfunction, which have proved intractable.

Another feature across politics and morals is short-sightedness. It's sometimes unavoidable, and sometimes it's a choice. Plastic was a wonderful thing when it was first introduced widely to consumers some 75 +/- years ago. We didn't foresee the trillions of plastic containers which we are stuck with now. On the other hand, someone with a memory voting for Trump might have foreseen that he would, if possible, enact extreme policies. He had described them clearly enough.

As an exemplar of sophisticated, mature moral judgement in a woman, I suggest you look at Dorothy Day, an anarchist / socialist who became a Catholic and spent a lifetime working for economic and political justice. She died 45 years ago and is now being considered for sainthood. Her own view on the matter was "Don't call me a saint: I don't want to be dismissed that easily!"

Joshs

↪AmadeusD

There is more in this post than most commenters are going to give it. But I can already see from the one response, people are not going to be even partially fair to an view-from-above post like this. A shame. — AmadeusD

…the left has no genuine moral beliefs; all their beliefs are only verbally espoused in order to try to win the approval of other leftists. I think MAGA is in the conventional stage of morality, which is concerned with law and order…

This study would seem to be consistent with the idea I just described that leftists have a lower level of moral development than conservatives. — Brendan Golledge

I’m just trying to wrap my head around the image of Brendan sitting in the middle of a group of MAGA supporters and saying to himself “Gee, these people are so much more morally developed than leftists!”.

Joshs

↪Brendan Golledge

t leftists have a lower level of moral development than conservatives — Brendan Golledge

Hey Brendan, just curious. Would you extend this moral
superiority to Trump or just to his MAGA followers?

AmadeusD

I’m just trying to wrap my head around the image of Brendan sitting in the middle of a group of MAGA supporters and saying to himself “Gee, these people are so much more morally developed than leftists!”. — Joshs

Not hard to imagine. You just have to realise you can disagree with the morals, and still notice that they are more developed (or, better orchestrated/consistent). I think that's patently true (though, most reasons why that's the case are negative in my view lol).

T Clark

You don't know,
You don't know my mind
When you see me laughing,
I'm laughing just to keep from crying

Vera Mont

↪T Clark

I just let myself cry now.

Tom Storm

You just have to realise you can disagree with the morals, and still notice that they are more developed (or, better orchestrated/consistent). I think that's patently true (though, most reasons why that's the case are negative in my view lol). — AmadeusD

ls it not sometimes be the case that the simplistic or primitive positions are easier to articulate and pull off?

When it comes to liberals, I tend to think they come in a continuum - some would belong to what MAGA people might call the "crazy Woke" brigade and others closer to centrist positions. I'm not much interested in politics, but it seems to me that the political debate these days focuses on the crazies on both sides, without recognising that most people are closer to the centre. Perhaps I'm wrong about this.

Begs the quesion too about just what morally developed looks like? Is moral development a matter of actual progress or simply of changing community values? If we believe in moral progress then are we not de facto moral realists?

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

AmadeusD

it seems to me that the political debate these days focuses on the crazies on both sides, without recognising that most people are closer to the centre. Perhaps I'm wrong about this. — Tom Storm

I was under this impression until some recent events had an overwhelming party-political bent to them (Karmelo Anthony, Luigi Mangione, Elon being drawn in to Government etc...) where the position is patently insane (Musk is a Nazi, Karmelo Anthony is a hero, Luigi Mangione is a hero) but correct, as far as the acceptable opinions for that group go. I could also be wrong, though, so your point rings very loud in my ears. The media etc.. heightens that impression, even if it's roughly speaking, correct.

Is moral development a matter of actual progress or simply of changing community values? — Tom Storm

Neither. For me, for that concept to hold much of anything, we're looking for coherence. IFF you believed your gay child was headed directly for Hell, your actions would be clear, concise and obviously toward the end of keeping them out of Hell. Well-developed. Doesn't mean good :P

AmadeusD

How can anyone be a moral person who waits to be told what to do, or to have others fix things or be responsible for fixing them? — tim wood

This is something that hte theory they're using has to answer for. Is it an objective moral, and can it be articulated? From a religious point of view, they're very-well sorted in that sense.

Brendan Golledge

People said a lot of stuff, but it is hard for me to find tangible points that can even be argued with.

The idea of stages of moral development is reasonable; Kohlberg's explication may not be altogether reasonable. — BC

Apparently, somebody called "Rest" tried to test Kohlberg's theory and found that 1 out of 14 people actually regress through Kohlberg's stages. As far as I'm concerned, 13/14 is pretty good for psychology.

And the left can see the inconsistency of the right and reject it. — BC

I gave examples of inconsistency on the left, and you did not attempt to refute it. And you gave no examples of inconsistency on the right.

I don't even see how most of the rest of your post is relevant. I can't remember the Republicans and Democrats ever arguing about plastic, for instance.

As an exemplar of sophisticated, mature moral judgement in a woman, I suggest you look at Dorothy Day — BC

It's nice if there are smart women out there, but I was talking about statistical trends rather than individual people.

Hey Brendan, just curious. Would you extend this moral
superiority to Trump or just to his MAGA followers? — Joshs

IMO, the Democrat politicians are overtly my enemies, and the Republican politicians are my enemies who pretend to be my friends. I haven't voted since 2012 because I saw that my local caucus was rigged. I think politics is about as real as pro-wrestling. Although, I was astonished that Trump mentioned a bunch of things that I actually wanted during his 2nd term, because I had never felt represented by an elected politician before. However, I don't even know if he's actually accomplished even 10% of what I'd like him to accomplish yet, so it might still be all for show. Also, I think some of the ways he's going about things (even if I agree that they address real problems) are not the best way of doing it. I was just so surprised in the last couple months that a politician actually did something that I half-agreed with, since it happens so rarely. I thought most of what he did in his first term was nonsense and a distraction.

Begs the question too about just what morally developed looks like? Is moral development a matter of actual progress or simply of changing community values? If we believe in moral progress then are we not de facto moral realists? — Tom Storm

I used Kohlberg's definition of moral development in this case. Apparently, it is pretty good. According to Kohlberg, moral development relates more to how you process moral questions, rather than necessarily getting any particular answer.

Brendan, some questions:
1) How do leftists discriminate against white men?
2) How does burning an electric car become an act against the environment?
3) What cities have they burned, or good Samaritans punished?
4) What exactly is the issue with defining a woman? — tim wood

I feel like I'm probably wasting my time. It is a common trope of liberals to pretend like they were born yesterday in order to make their opponent explain everything that has ever existed before they will concede a point. But I will answer your questions anyway.

1. https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/cisgender-straight-white-males-need-not-apply.html
https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/major-us-companies-gave-94-of-new-jobs-to-people-of-color-in-2021-report-says-diversity-hiring-employees-apple-nike-microsoft-wells-fargo

^It came straight from the horse's mouth that they are discriminating against white people.

DEI is logically equivalent to discrimination. Suppose the options are A, B, or C exclusively.

If you choose A OR B
by Demorgan's theorem, that's the same as NOT (NOT A AND NOT B)
By exclusion, NOT A AND NOT B means C, if there are only 3 options
Substitute C for (NOT A and NOT B) above and you get
A OR B <--> NOT C

if, for instance, A means women and B means people of color, then C is white men. Trying on purpose to hire A OR B is the same as trying to not hire C.

So, every company that ever had a DEI page was advertising that they hate white men.

2. Electric cars are supposed to be good for the environment. Before Elon made them, liberals liked electric cars. I think even a majority of people buying from Tesla were liberals before Elon bought Twitter and made all the liberals mad. Also, apparently burning batteries releases a lot of toxic fumes.

3. There were BLM riots in Minneapolis, Brooklyn, and Los Angeles, among other cities. They are still burning Tesla cars, so far as I know. "Burn down a city" I guess is an exaggeration, but they burned a lot of stuff.

The most famous Good Samaritan I think is Daniel Penny. At least, all the witnesses seemed to agree that he was a hero.

4. Did you never hear of the documentary "What is a Woman?" There is a famous case during a confirmation hearing where Judge Jackson was asked, "What is a woman?" and responded, "I can't... Not in this context. I'm not a biologist." I found a half dozen other situations like this after a quick google search, but if you cared, you could also google it or use ChatGPT or something.

How can anyone be a moral person who waits to be told what to do, or to have others fix things or be responsible for fixing them? — tim wood

I was arguing that law-based morality really still means argument based on authority, except with the caveat that it should be consistent. Law isn't really law if it isn't consistent, after all, and it can't exist without some authority decreeing it.

Thank you, Amadeus, for giving reasonable replies.

AmadeusD

Just a note: we might be closer to each other htan many here, but saying things like this:

I feel like I'm probably wasting my time. It is a common trope of liberals to pretend like they were born yesterday in order to make their opponent explain everything that has ever existed before they will concede a point. — Brendan Golledge

every company that ever had a DEI page was advertising that they hate white men. — Brendan Golledge

but if you cared, — Brendan Golledge

comes across as emotional, dismissive and unhelpful to a conversation. You should assume most people will have a hard time with these topics and not lose patience. Don't fall into the NOS4A2 hole of being lumpen about conversations you apparently are deeply invested in :) If you don't want to reply, don't. But its not good to say "I don't want to reply, but I will" basically. Feels like you've already made up your mind.

BC

And you gave no examples of inconsistency on the right. — Brendan Golledge

OK, so "law and order" and the January 6th attack on the capitol by right wingers.

It's nice if there are smart women out there, but I was talking about statistical trends rather than individual people. — Brendan Golledge

Smart women have always been a trend, just like smart men.

AmadeusD

OK, so "law and order" and the January 6th attack on the capitol by right wingers. — BC

In their view, however misguided, they were upholding Law by pushing back against an illegally-won election (I know, I know. Roll your eyes all you want. I did. But this is consistent, at least).
It's the response, post-Jan 6 than gives me quite a bit of inconsistency to go on with.

Smart women have always been a trend, just like smart men. — BC

Could you point to this trend? Noting that I am well aware that that 'smart women" have existed as long as humans have. It seems quite clear to me that what Brendan is getting at is above this level of (fair) glibness.

Brendan Golledge

OK, so "law and order" and the January 6th attack on the capitol by right wingers. — BC

This is an example of right wingers behaving in a disorderly way. I do not think I could justify that the right has done everything correctly.

One thing I could point out though is that the quantity of deaths, injuries, and property damage done by the BLM riots dwarfs what was done on Jan 6th. Also, as a counter-example, there was a pro 2nd amendment rally in Virginia a few years ago where 22k armed protestors showed up, and not a single shot was fired. This demonstrates that the right has a greater capacity for violence than the left, but acts less violently.

The argument I am making here is that women as a group don't progress as high up Kohlberg's stages of moral development as men. I have not seen any counter points (individual persons don't really demonstrate anything).

AmadeusD

dwarfs what was done on Jan 6th — Brendan Golledge

This seems a bit of "whataboutism". I think BC has correctly identified a situation where, for all other viewers, the right-wing action was hypocritical. No?

I have not seen any counter points (individual persons don't really demonstrate anything). — Brendan Golledge

One counterpoint would be that, historically, this hasn't been possible. Currently, the trend is toward more educated/intelligent woman taking up more and more space in our 'important' fields like STEM and politics. Still a disparity? Yep. There would be, on either reading - so it's hard to understand why you think your version is the correct reading?

Brendan Golledge

I was reviewing my own argument.

According to Jonathan Haidt, Liberals care about harm and fairness (individualizing values), whereas conservatives care more about loyalty, authority, and sanctity (binding values).

According to Kohlberg, Stage 3 (out of 6) is about Interpersonal Accord and Conformity. Stage 4 is about authority and maintaining social order.

I think liberal values of harm and fairness falling in stage 3, and the conservative values falling in stage 4 is a largely consistent synthesis of the two. Women being associated both with stage 3 and with liberal political leaning is also consistent.

However, Kohlberg classified both these stages as conventional morality, whereas I said that the left is in pre conventional morality. This seems like a bit of a misclassification on my part. However, I don't think that the people who behave violently or rudely are acting out interpersonal accord. So, whereas it would not be accurate in this model to say that all liberals fall in pre conventional morality, I think it would be safe to say that the most egregious behavior on the left is in pre conventional morality.

I said that both care about authority and power, but Kohlberg doesn't mention authority as a value until level 4. However, he does mention reward and punishment in levels 1 and 2. So, who is giving rewards and punishments except for authority? I think the lower levels of development respect the power that authority has, but level 4 starts to respect authority for its own sake, even if there is no immediate threat of punishment.

Someone asked whether I think adults act like infants. I think the adults who need safe spaces, trigger warnings, and other such things are operating on a level similar to infants.

I would like to concede that I don't think it was always this way. There are even some liberals like Bill Maher who say that the left has gone nuts. There are people like him who haven't changed their opinions in 20 years, which would have made them a liberal 20 years ago but a conservative today. I think the further back in time you go, the more-so "liberalism" meant an actual political philosophy rather than just conformity and pandering without any consistency. The founding fathers were "liberals" of their time, but a lot of modern liberals seem to think that they are NAZIs.

Brendan Golledge

↪AmadeusD

I should have gone to bed already.

Yes, it does seem to me to be accurate to describe what happened on Jan 6th as a riot. All the sources I read say that a lot of police got beat up. I don't know how that could have happened if there wasn't a brawl. But I think it is inaccurate to call it an insurrection, because if they were actually trying to overthrow the government, they would have brought their guns, and there would have been a lot of deaths.

As far as Kohlberg's stages of development go, I don't think women in STEM fields really makes a difference. In order to counter this point, you'd have to show that women have an objective moral standard rather than just siding with whoever sees weaker or more relatable. I just remembered this study which seems to back up my point https://slate.com/technology/2006/01/men-women-and-the-joy-of-punishment.html

In my personal experience, all my worst experiences with authority have been from women. It has only been female authority figures who went out of their way to make my life miserable when there was nothing in it for them. There were also a couple who seemed to take an arbitrary liking to me. My worst experience with male supervisors is that they just don't care about me. At least with a male supervisor, I know that if I do what he says, he will be okay with me. But sometimes a woman makes up her mind to hate you and there's nothing you can do about it.

I am not very impressed with female moral behavior in large groups. The #1 political issue for most women is whether they can kill their babies. I don't even have a strong opinion about when life begins, but it doesn't seem normal to me that a person ought to put killing their babies on the top of their priority list. I would think that a normal person would love their babies and want to take care of them. Also, 100% of marriages are initiated by men, but 70% of divorces are initiated by women. And the majority of serial killers were raised by single mothers (probably because women can't set boundaries, since most of them don't get to level 4). Women also show a complete lack of empathy for male suicide, deaths on the job, homelessness, etc. They asked for special treatment in education and at the job, but have taken no notice that more women graduate college now or that young women outearn men in some cities. Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying that women were the real victims in war. Can you imagine what people would say if someone said that men are the real victims of fatal childbirths? And lots of women recently have said that they would feel safer with a bear than a man. But suppose you replaced "man" with "black man" or "Jew"? Would this be acceptable? I could make a similar argument. A young child is more likely to be killed by his mother than a bear, so I would rather keep my child in the company of a bear than a woman. Can you imagine the hysteria if people were putting forward that argument in a serious tone?

I am ready to get banned for misogyny and general bigotry now. I am tired of the general low quality of discussion on this forum, so I don't even really care anymore. Yes, I am a racist sexist evil Hitler bigot. I hate everything good and pure in this world, including ice cream, babies, and puppies.

BC

I am tired of the general low quality of discussion on this forum, so I don't even really care anymore. — Brendan Golledge

Says you while scrapping the bottom of the barrel of comments.

I am not very impressed with female moral behavior in large groups. — Brendan Golledge

In general, I'd say one should not be very impressed with human moral behavior in large groups. As Immanuel Kant said, "Nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind." Nothing truer was also never said

AmadeusD

it is inaccurate to call it an insurrection, — Brendan Golledge

I agree with this, for sure. It wasn't at all an actual coup (though, I do have to leave open the "What if they got physical control of the building?" type stuff - and I can't be sure. old LSD Jesus or whatever would've done a number, but I imagine most would've gone home.

I don't think women in STEM fields really makes a difference. — Brendan Golledge

I mentioned others, but it also does make a difference. You're saying there's a trend under which women do not achieve in the same ways men do, intellectually. I am showing that, currently, there is a trend in that exact direction. We need another 50 years before we could make a call, is my position there. I don't think you've established what you're claiming, yet.

In my personal experience, all my worst experiences with authority have been from women. It has only been female authority figures who went out of their way to make my life miserable when there was nothing in it for them. There were also a couple who seemed to take an arbitrary liking to me. — Brendan Golledge

Unfortunately, I can't counter this. My experience has also been overwhelmingly that men in positions of power over me are either: 1. Uncaring, or 2. Extremely caring. For women, its generally been 1. They like me; or 2. They don't like me and that has informed their actions toward me. This seems particularly true of the legal field.

That said, my experience isn't much to go on. I think women aren't used to be in positions of power. Goes along with why I think the 'trend' you note probably isn't a fair framing of what's happened/is happening. In terms of optics, I'm right there with you though.

Also, 100% of marriages are initiated by men, but 70% of divorces are initiated by women. — Brendan Golledge

This isn't true. 100% means there is not a single marriage initiated by a woman. Do you care to own that claim? I suggest it is patently untrue.

you'd have to show that women have an objective moral standard rather than just siding with whoever sees weaker or more relatable — Brendan Golledge

No, you wouldn't. You'd just have to show that your final half-sentence is not true. I don't think it is, any more than a majority of men do the same. Men are particularly good at doing that to women. Perhaps the sexes are just evolutionarily, understandably, a bit wary of each other in a moral sense given their differing capacities and strengths.

But sometimes a woman makes up her mind to hate you and there's nothing you can do about it. — Brendan Golledge

Men do this all the time. And women do it to women more often, interestingly.

I'm trying my best to bring you back into a discussion where you're not foot-out-door. IT's making it hard to drill down to what you actually think about these issues, rather htan how you're currently feeling.

And lots of women recently have said that they would feel safer with a bear than a man. — Brendan Golledge

Most women not being paid to say it use this as an apt metaphor for the fact that they've never been attacked by a bear, and neither has the vast majority of women. They have, in some probably small majority, been attacked in some way by a man. Its a bit of a ridiculous click-bait thing, and some younger women seem to have fallen into thinking it was serious. That's lamentable. I don't think that has anythign to do wiwth women's capacity for moral thinking. That seems total non sequitur.

A young child is more likely to be killed by his mother than a bear, so I would rather keep my child in the company of a bear than a woman. — Brendan Golledge

I would think most of those who take the above seriously, would agree with this but want you to do a decent human being and acknowledge, as the law does, that birth often relegates reason to a backseat, thus reducing culpability. Nothing in a man's world can do this, other than some form of argument about how hormones cause men to be overwhelmingly horny and act out of character as a result (I think there's something to this, but not enough to reduce culpability). But, hormones v hormones usually gets an "Oh, I hadn't thought of that" in my experience.

Edit: However, I highly, HIGHLY recommend not reply to Mikie. There's no discussion to be had. He's even right, most of the time. But its not worth the time, and it seems you're already upset by the generally left-leaning nature of the forum. Mikie is exceptional in the degree to which he mimics a Twitter user.

Mikie

The left must clearly be in this category, because they talk about equality, and then discriminate against white men. — Brendan Golledge

I think MAGA is in the conventional stage of morality, which is concerned with law and order. — Brendan Golledge

All this is true— provided you swallow right-wing propaganda whole. In that Alternative Reality, all of this makes perfect sense.

Mikie

I am ready to get banned for misogyny and general bigotry now. I am tired of the general low quality of discussion on this forum, so I don't even really care anymore. — Brendan Golledge

Fingers crossed.

180 Proof

I think leftists are in the preconventional stage of morality, and MAGA are in the conventional stage. — Brendan Golledge

As a libertarian leftist and negative consequentialist, I find reductionist – simplistic – statements like yours, Brendan, meaningless (ahistorical). The last century or so of 'political' events and conflicts amply shows that, especially for most citizens, governing ideologies are not determined by – not consistently derived from – ethical principles (or practices), even though the domains (can) overlap. Of course, any concrete, real world counter-examples would lend some credibility to the OP.

RogueAI

I don't even have a strong opinion about when life begins, but it doesn't seem normal to me that a person ought to put killing their babies on the top of their priority list. — Brendan Golledge

Because you're a man. You take bodily autonomy for granted. And you also can't think. You will never be raped and forced to carry the rapist's child to term. Can you imagine how awful that would be? No, because your posts show a total lack of imagination. There are nine states with laws like that on the books. The fact you can't understand why women are passionate about abortion rights tells me your level of moral development is very low.

Tom Storm

I am ready to get banned for misogyny and general bigotry now. — Brendan Golledge

Hopefully it won't come to that. I think this site can deal with different views. I tend to hold Leftist positions on many things but I am always happy to listen to a reasonable Right Winger, even if they hold views I disagree with.

In relation to men and women - I tend to think there is only a war between the sexes if that's how you frame reality to begin with. Confirmation bias.

I have worked with female bosses and colleagues for much of my life and have rarely had any issues. I prefer woman in charge to men. What I've seen is better people skills and more intelligence.

In my experince, the men who have problems with women tend to see women as alien or exotic creatures to beign with.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

180 Proof

↪RogueAI

:up:

AmadeusD

Without a lot more information, these are "gee-whiz" statistics. That is, by themselves they don't mean anything. — tim wood

(This isn't loaded. I understand you'll have a reasonable answer) Do you keep this same logic when it comes to noting other, prima facie interesting statistics? Something like the crime statistics vs ethnicity? Is it "gee whizz" or is it "we're over-incarcerating?"

Anything in that you object to? — tim wood

This is a kind of disingenuous 'gotcha' I wouldn't have pegged you for. "DEI" is not "diversity, equity and inclusion" and that's it. DEI is a movement with tenets, expectations and results. I, for one, am not a fan. I think those three words are fine things to have a penchant for, though. Enforcing them seems... self-defeating.

I asked what leftists burned and you talk about BLM, and as to what was burned, and you say, "Duh, I dunno, but they burned a lot of stuff." Like what? — tim wood

Equally disingenuous,. You either are, or are not aware of the literal billions in damage to predominantly black communities and businesses and (iirc) 19 dead bodies. If you're not, just say that.

Further, are you really trying to say BLM was some kind of 'business as usual'? It wasn't. Not by a loooooooooong shot. It was thuggery of the most obvious kind.

I suggest you look up "decree." — tim wood

He's using the word correctly. It is an ordinance with the force of law behind it.

How was Penny abused? — tim wood

He should have never been charged with anything. Hero? Probably not. But htis is again just disingenuous.

And how was Justice Jackson at fault? — tim wood

A law maker that cannot define the element of law which applies specifically to herself, in the context of lawmaking, is at fault. I cannot understand your attitude throughout htis reply. Its bizarre.
A woman is an adult human female. It is simple, and not at all a problem for 99 % of people throughout most of history.

In sum, you have doubled down on your vicious stupidity — tim wood

Your entire reply is condescending (mostly wrong) babbling. Keep that same energy and report your own posts my guy.

The Political Divide is a Moral Divide

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions