Sunday, September 14, 2008

If you're a Democrat, would you eat the family dog?

Apparently, liberal students at the University of Pennsylvania would according to an essay on moral behavior by Jonathan Haidt, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Virginia:

For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, "even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).

. ....The second conclusion was that the moral domain varies across cultures. Turiel's description of morality as being about justice, rights, and human welfare worked perfectly for the college students I interviewed at Penn, but it simply did not capture the moral concerns of the less elite groups—the working-class people in both countries who were more likely to justify their judgments with talk about respect, duty, and family roles. ("Your dog is family, and you just don't eat family.")


Haidt's essay is very interesting and is more about the different ways that liberals and conservatives view the world in terms of morality (although I think some of what he says is incorrect) than just about the family dog but it is definitely worth a read.

Labels: ,

35 Comments:

Blogger Joan of Argghh! said...

But... but... only Republicans are that evil!!

Ask Bill Mahr or Jeanine Garafalo. They really believe they're being astute, honest, and superior when they paint with that broad brush. How can you be so cynical and smug, Dr. Helen? When you know the truth!!

Dog-Eating Democrats would be a good name for a blog, however.

3:44 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger Assistant Village Idiot said...

I saw this linked over at neo-neocon, and this comment is similar. Haidt, for all his congratulating himself on his ability to understand people different from him, missed two obvious bits: 1) when the group that "got it most right," according to Haidt's implication, were Penn undergrads, warning alarms should have gone off for him. 20 y/o Ivy Leaguers are not likely the best moral arbiters. Having been at a similar school and a complete ass when I was 20, I think I can say that. 2) By his own discovery, the conservatives were able to understand liberal reasoning but this was not reciprocated. From this Haidt concludes that conservatives add in some unnecessary elements to morality, rather than wondering if they know something he doesn't. Further, he guesses wrong as to what those elements are.

The follow-up essays were also enlightening, some for their insights, some for their demonstration of demonstration of rank bigotry by academics and refusal to see the obvious when it is uncomfortable. (Seeing the obvious is why the world needs Assistant Village Idiots.)

5:22 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger Zach said...

When I read this essay, I wondered if the Penn students would really eat the dog, or if they had been conditioned to believe that certain questions have trick answers -- that giving the obvious and expected answer is no more than the first line in a Socratic dialogue, with you playing the dummy.

5:24 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger Kirk Parker said...

Well, is it a blue dog, or a yellow one?

5:35 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger tim in vermont said...

Not to mention cleaning the toilet with a flag. What this says is that the flag is a meaningless piece of cloth. I suppose if you believe that, then you could believe that the dog is just meat when it is dead.

I am wondering how they would have answered if asked, your baby has just been stillborn and you need some stew meat for a soup....

I loved his line about Liberal response to Conservative arguments though... "Reject first! Ask rhetorical questions later!" That is seriously true.

5:58 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

Very interesting read. I somewhat got the feeling of it being a kind of primer. The "if you only act this way" sort of thing.

It won't do for those on one side to simply use the rhetoric 'appropriate' to convince the other as there's a distinct taste of phony about those who try. There's always some nuance that fails to come across and the recipient's bullshit flags go up.

Unfortunately, I don't think either fringe will make the attempt to actually understand the other, so it's all probably moot.

zach -- If the Penn students took the test with that frame of mind, then they betrayed that they were phonies from the get-go, eh?

As for the on-line 'self-test', I can see them wanting a registered base, but requiring it to even get results seems a bit petty. Those not wanting to register would form a distinct subset and so would be useful in their own right.

6:31 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger Scootie-Puff said...

Funny, my high school age son used to ask us if we thought our border collie would eat our dead bodies if something happened to us. He was only half-joking, and we assured him that she would no doubt guard our dead bodies the rest of her life. I truly believe she would.

She was a great dog. She died unexpectedly last December, probably of a brain bleed, but we still have one of her pups who is just as sweet. I think they would know what the right answers are.

8:48 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger JokersWild said...

"Not to mention cleaning the toilet with a flag. What this says is that the flag is a meaningless piece of cloth. I suppose if you believe that, then you could believe that the dog is just meat when it is dead."

Some people realize that a symbol is simply that, a symbol. The ideas behind the U.S. Flag should be more important than the actual cloth. When people treat cloth with such reverence I consider it simply idolatry which is to put the symbol ahead of the meaning of the symbol, in this case freedom.

We, as Americans, have come to accept such norms that our pets are not our food (save those of us raised either on or around farms). On the opposite end of the spectrum I do not believe that animals have rights other than not be treated cruelly. And treated cruelly does not include being slaughtered for food. If eating your family pet meant you or your family's survival what would you do?

It's also nice to think that if we were to die in our homes with our pets they'd be found dead of starvation along side our bodies. I really don't think you can expect that to happen more often than not if ever.

9:33 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger Gregory Kong said...

I'm Chinese and we eat dogs - in fact, I like to ham up the fact that I'm mostly carnivorous and will eat almost any vertebrate-based meat as well as seafood/shellfish.

However.

A symbol stands for something. No, it is not the thing in and of itself, but it stands for something. That is why diplomats have immunity, and why you receive an ambassador, much less a Head of State, wth a certain degree of pomp - they stand in for the country they represent.

You can equally say that a cross is just a bit of gold (or whatever it's made of), but it usually is a symbol of Christianity. Similarly, people get upset when statues are defaced, even though they're just bronze or stone.

That is to say, when you cut up a country's flag and use it as a bit of rag, the message you send across is that you're cutting up the values that country stands for - that it's only fit to be used for menial work.

Not even the most rabid anti-illegal-immigrant would do that to Mexico's flag, I don't think.

9:58 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger David Foster said...

In C S Lewis' novel "That Hideous Strength," the principal character is captured by a sinister cabal. He is put through a process of training which is aimed at killing "all specifically human reactions" in a person.

To kill the "specifically human reactions" in a person and substitute something else...is that the effect of higher education--especially graduate education in the social sciences and the humanities--as often carried out today?

See my post an incident at the movies.

10:30 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger Peter Dane said...

Not even the most rabid anti-illegal-immigrant would do that to Mexico's flag, I don't think.

Well, many would. But the intent would be intentional disrespect.

That is what is the more infuriating is the callous and condescending dismissal of the left of such things as the flag. Once you get it in your head that they really don't think it's a big deal, you realize the "symbolism" of the flag means nothing to them.

11:01 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger Bob Wang said...

My neighbor and I had McCain signs stolen last night.
An Obama sign down the street was untouched.
‘Nuff said.

http://sarahpalinforpresident.blogspot.com/

Bob

11:30 PM, September 14, 2008  
Blogger JL said...

If eating your family pet meant you or your family's survival what would you do?

Yeah that basically sums it up for me. Both the flag and dog are important (or in my case, my exceptional dog-like cat Mortimer) and do a have certain value beyond their physical attributes.

That being said, I would eat my dog-like cat and wipe my mouth with a former flag napkin if it meant choosing between them as symbols or the well-being of my loved ones and myself. This assumes no other options, which outside of a nuclear cataclysm and then being stuck in the vacuum of space with no napkins will probably not happen.

4:12 AM, September 15, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder the results if asked about eating dead liberals. Beside the fact ones brain would shrink.

6:25 AM, September 15, 2008  
Blogger flambeaux said...

If you consume liberals, avoid the brains. You wouldn't want to risk LSE (liberal spongiform encephalopathy).

8:30 AM, September 15, 2008  
Blogger Words Twice said...

“Rather than automatically rejecting the men as sexist oppressors and pitying the women, children, and servants as helpless victims, I was able to see a moral world in which families, not individuals, are the basic unit of society, and the members of each extended family (including its servants) are intensely interdependent.”

I love how Haidt thinks he is being profound but actually just reverts to the typical liberal belief in the myth of the noble savage. He also sees in it a collectivist aspect which appeals to his socialist sensitivities. It’s all good as long as poor brown people are doing it; more liberal soft racism.

This carries over into religion and the war on terror. This is why liberals love denigrating Christianity but can’t bring themselves to condemn Islam.

“Democrats should think carefully, therefore, about why they celebrate diversity. If the purpose of diversity programs is to fight racism and discrimination (worthy goals based on fairness concerns), then these goals might be better served by encouraging assimilation and a sense of shared identity.”

This guy is just now beginning to understand this concept? This is something conservatives have been saying as long as I can recall.

9:57 AM, September 15, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mad lib disease. That's a good point! We've all seen it in action, that's for sure.

12:37 PM, September 15, 2008  
Blogger Leatherwing said...

In his essay, he claims that there are 5 sliders for different parts of the moral spectrum. He claims that Democrats generally only use 2 of them, that conservatives use all 5. Then he claims that conservatives are the ones with a problem. I don't think he has any mirrors in his house.

1:44 PM, September 15, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

helen --

Interesting confluence of this and one of Glenn's links to a post about photographer Jill Greenberg.

She displays exactly the disconnect of the Penn students. It's all right to torment a two year old to get pictures which can be used to attack a political opposite. She rationalizes away the anguish of the infant where volumes of commenters on blogs state the simple truth that it's friggin' wrong to torment an infant.

4:20 PM, September 15, 2008  
Blogger Helen said...

Oligonicella,

Actually, the moral dilemmas presented to the Penn students were actually "harmless," at least in theory--the dog was already dead, the flag was a symbol, being used to clean a toilet, not used to antagonize a two year old. Greenberg's behavior was atrocious and ethically bankrupt, in my opinion. A professional never takes a job that he or she knows they cannot do in an objective manner.

4:30 PM, September 15, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

helen --

That particular test, true. But, load on the results from the button-shock test. Would be interested to see if demographics were kept on those. Would you know?

One of Greenberg's self-defenses was that it didn't 'really' cause the kids harm. As with those who rationalized away their restraints, she rationalized away her restraints. It's all done in mini-steps.

That does, of course, presume she had any restraints on making infants cry.

10:16 AM, September 16, 2008  
Blogger FatwaGirl said...

I don't find it surprising that 20-year-old college students are witless. But I am appalled that this idiot discussed eating the family dog with 11-year-old children. Way to give nightmares. I can't imagine how completely distressed, if not hysterical, I would have been if someone had suggested that eating my precious pet was OK.

7:03 PM, September 16, 2008  
Blogger cinderkeys said...

The real question isn't whether Democrats would eat the recently deceased family dog, or cut up the American flag and use it to clean the toilet. The vast majority would be as disgusted by the idea of such things as Republicans.

The real question is, would Democrats persecute or prosecute people who ate the dog or cleaned with the flag? The liberal perspective is, that's when you have to override your natural feelings of disgust long enough to consider whether real harm is being done. If no harm, then it's not your right to interfere.

Come to think of it, isn't that the Libertarian view as well?

3:51 AM, September 18, 2008  
Blogger Words Twice said...

Come to think of it, isn't that the Libertarian view as well?

First of all, that is not the liberal position, so trying to conflate the two is flawed from the start. Trying to mischaracterize liberals as rational and detached people who hesitate to interfere in the affairs of others is laughable.

Also, there is a big difference between berating someone because you disagree with them versus using the proxy violence of the state against them. Liberals enthusiastically engage in both.

Liberal Democrats would prosecute the dog eaters for violating the animal’s “rights” and Republicans would prosecute “unpatriotic” people for flag desecration.

Libertarians are fed up with both of them.

7:43 AM, September 19, 2008  
Blogger cinderkeys said...

Trying to mischaracterize liberals as rational and detached people who hesitate to interfere in the affairs of others is laughable.

Liberal interference tends more toward, "You're violating that person's/animal's rights/delicate sensibilities and we will make you stop!" or "You're broken! We can fix you!" You can make excellent cases against the excesses of both, but they don't really apply to Haidt's examples.

3:18 PM, September 19, 2008  
Blogger Words Twice said...

You can make excellent cases against the excesses of both, but they don't really apply to Haidt's examples.

Why not? Who cares what kind of good intentions they are paving their roads with?

You described a viewpoint that could be described as libertarian and incorrectly characterized it as a liberal one. I’m sure that’s how many liberals like to think of themselves but nothing could be further from the truth.

Haidt is right about one thing: politics is more like religion than it is like shopping.

4:53 PM, September 19, 2008  
Blogger Unknown said...

Color me disgusted by your dishonesty in characterizing the university students in this study as "liberals" and "Democrats."

These were students at an elite college. That does not tell you what their political inclinations are, and it certainly does not entitle you to suggest that they are representative of either liberals or Democrats in general.

Furthermore, I would bet that many of the survey participants were treating this exercise as a game, and enjoyed giving outrageous answers.

9:24 AM, September 21, 2008  
Blogger Michael McNeil said...

The dog probably would guard the bodies. The cat now….

9:05 PM, September 21, 2008  
Blogger Quincy said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11:35 PM, September 22, 2008  
Blogger Adi said...

It seems to me that most of the comments in this forum prove the underlying point in Haidt’s work. We make intuitive moral judgments and then try to rationalize them. Or as he says the emotional dog is wagging the rational tail.
Or to say it differently, people can turn anything into ammunition of for the cultural war, because our fear and distrust of each other is so intense. It’s a damn shame that so many people in our country are stuck on trying to prove that the other half of the country is stupid, close-minded, immoral, ignorant etc.
Having said that, its not much of a surprise fear and anger are much more motivating than reason.
I hope that we can begin to move past this type of political dialogue and really start to see elections that are about coming together to solve our shared concerns in creative and unifying ways.
Could you imagine a world in which debates were analyzed by policy experts instead of spun by party hacks? Wouldn’t that be refreshing?

6:47 PM, October 21, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結
好站推薦友情連結

8:17 AM, February 15, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛聊天室avdvd-情色網ut13077視訊聊天A片-無碼援交東京熱一本道aaa免費看影片免費視訊聊天室微風成人ut聊天室av1688影音視訊天堂85cc免費影城亞洲禁果影城微風成人av論壇sex520免費影片JP成人網免費成人視訊aaa影片下載城免費a片 ut交友成人視訊85cc成人影城免費A片aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片小魔女免費影城免費看 aa的滿18歲影片sex383線上娛樂場kk777視訊俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片a片免費看A片-sex520plus論壇sex520免費影片85cc免費影片aaa片免費看短片aa影片下載城aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部aa的滿18歲影片小魔女免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費卡通影片線上觀看線上免費a片觀看85cc免費影片免費A片aa影片下載城ut聊天室辣妹視訊UT影音視訊聊天室 日本免費視訊aaaa 片俱樂部aaa片免費看短片aaaa片免費看影片aaa片免費看短片免費視訊78論壇情色偷拍免費A片免費aaaaa片俱樂部影片後宮0204movie免費影片av俱樂部aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片 杜蕾斯成人免費卡通影片線上觀看85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費線上歐美A片觀看免費a片卡通aaa的滿18歲卡通影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片免費視訊聊天jp成人sex520免費影片

5:23 AM, April 15, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

☆♀ 火辣美媚 ☆♀☆♀ 影音交友 ☆♀色情豆豆聊天室JP成人論壇網愛成人聊天室火辣美女免費視訊辣妹脫衣秀☆♀ 情色影片下載 ☆♀☆♀ 一夜激情交友聊天室 ☆♀★影音視訊聊天情人網★☆♀ av女優影片 ☆♀☆♀ 網路視訊聊天 ☆♀色情視訊聊天室☆♀ 080辣妹聊天室 ☆♀ 成人視訊交友天地網友一夜情聊天室痘痘聊天室☆♀ 成人電影下載 ☆♀★視訊聊天交友★☆♀ 影音交友 ☆♀☆♀ 網愛俱樂部 ☆♀火辣美女☆♀ 辣妹視訊聊天 ☆♀一夜激情網愛聊天室★一夜激情影音聊天室★☆♀ 視訊聊天辣妹 ☆♀☆♀ 免費網友自拍影片 ☆♀激情網愛聊天☆♀ 網愛bbs ☆♀ 網愛成人聊天室JP成人影城☆♀ 情色影片下載 ☆♀激情網愛聊天學生族視訊★視訊聊天交友★日本av女優影片☆♀ 火辣美媚 ☆♀優質辣妹影音視訊聊天室☆♀ 情色電影院☆♀偷窺自拍貼圖片區sex520免費影片☆♀ 情色成人影片 ☆♀成人視訊聊天ut聊天室聊天室激情辣妹聊天室☆♀ 辣妹視訊聊天 ☆♀即時視訊聊天火辣美女123上班族聊天室★視訊聊天交友★網愛成人聊天室★辣妹妹影音視訊聊天室★☆♀ 080辣妹聊天室 ☆♀ ☆♀ skype網愛 ☆♀☆♀ 一夜情影音交友 ☆♀☆♀ 辣妹視訊聊天 ☆♀★一夜激情影音聊天室★★網路視訊聊天室★☆♀ 情色影片下載 ☆♀☆♀ 網愛俱樂部 ☆♀情色影音聊天網愛成人聊天室我愛78論壇成人愛情交易所★台北一夜激情聊天室★☆♀ 情色影片下載 ☆♀女學生情色視訊聊天室☆♀ 成人哈啦聊天室 ☆♀dodo成人聊天室優質浪女視訊聊天室☆♀ 情色視訊聊天 ☆♀★台北一夜激情聊天室★愛情花園聊天室☆♀ 火辣美媚 ☆♀★網路視訊聊天室★★影音視訊聊天情人網★網愛成人聊天室一夜激情網愛聊天室ut聊天室聊天室聊天室入口 yam情色影音聊天豆豆成人聊天室☆♀ 情色視訊聊天 ☆♀辣妹成人視訊聊天室☆♀ 080辣妹聊天室 ☆♀ ☆♀ 網愛bbs ☆♀ ☆♀ 火辣美媚 ☆♀辣妹影音視訊聊天室★視訊聊天交友★☆♀ 限制級影片 ☆0204情愛視訊聊天網真人視訊影音聊天線上交友網★一夜激情影音聊天室★☆♀ 美女視訊聊天 ☆♀真人視訊影音聊天一夜激情網愛聊天室舞之心情色論壇☆♀ skype網愛 ☆♀藍色愛情海聊天室168視訊美女女生遊戲區★影音視訊聊天情人網★★台北一夜激情聊天室★情色影音聊天免費真人視訊辣妹臺灣18歲成人成人視訊聊天☆♀ 辣妹視訊聊天 ☆♀☆♀ skype網愛 ☆♀上班族聊天室上班族聊天室上班族聊天室上班族聊天室上班族聊天室上班族聊天室上班族聊天室上班族聊天室免費成人視訊聊天秀免費成人視訊聊天秀免費成人視訊聊天秀

10:19 AM, May 05, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................

6:20 AM, May 20, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

微風成人論壇貼圖成人貼圖免費成人片觀賞熊貓貼圖0204貼圖區區在線a片情色視訊聊天室熊貓貼圖區嘟嘟貼圖區貼圖片區一葉情貼圖片區漫畫貼圖6k聊天室成人貼圖站貼圖區百分百貼圖色情貼圖免費aa片試看一葉情貼圖片區 av127自拍貼圖性愛貼圖kiss911貼圖片區

4:55 AM, June 08, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home