I'm reading George Lakoff's Moral Politics which explains the different moral frameworks that are the basis of liberal & conservative views (which is related to this discussion of religious & secular views). The metaphor used will determine how morality is framed, but the secular view goes beyond this. According to Lakoff, the frame of liberals is the Nurturant Parent which is supported by the scientific research into childrearing. It's moral because it creates socially beneficial behavior.
Hi Marmalade! Thanks for your comment. I'm actually a fan of George Lakoff's ; )
While I never made it through Moral Politics, I did thoroughly enjoy his smaller book Don't Think of An Elephant and a good bit of Metaphor's We Live By.
(I think his theory of different models of family projected onto the state is pretty brilliant.)
Socially beneficial behavior as moral I think is consistent w/ our primary moral concern being how human behavior effects people.
Only, when we're talking about why people should be moral, I think we need to address self-interest also. I believe it's in people self-interest to live in a society w/ laws against things like stealing and murder & so to support such laws. But also at the personal level, given it's impact on the quality of one's relationships which is essential to well-being. I guess I'm only adding that "Socially beneficial behavior" is in our individual self-interest also.
And important for making sense of the language we use / showing how it makes sense from a natural / secular perspective. Lakoff may cover all this as well, I'm not sure ; )
Have you seen Lakoff's presentation to Google? I believe it's still on the google page here.
@myintellectualjourny I've only read maybe a third of Moral Politics. I was already somewhat familiar with Lakoff's writings and I've seen a number videos of him, but I'm gaining insight from this particular book. Lakoff does discuss the issue of self-interest. I don't know to what degree his overall argument intersects with your view. It seems that he considers self-interest as not being the central issue for either the liberal or conservative view, but it plays a part in his discussion.
Lakoff thinks the framing of family metaphors is the central issue. Within this discussion, self-interest plays various roles. Liberals and conservatives will define self-interest differently and see it as having a different basis and purpose. Nurturant parents want to respect and treat fairly the individual of the child. Strict fathers think a willful child has to be made into a responsible individual. I think the liberal view is more accomodating of the inherent value of the individual.
Definitely. I find Lakoff's theory on political views to be compelling & know of no better theory 4 explaining them fully. As far as what's in people's best interest, I approach this from a secular perspective, looking at what we can know based on how human behavior positively / negatively effects people in "this world" (or without religious assumptions coming into play - as they do w/ the strict father family model). And by available insights, as not a matter of mere opinion.
@myintellectualjourny At best, the conservative worldview uses very selectively the scientific research on childrearing. At worse, the conservative worldview utterly dismisses science and holds the Bible as a higher authority. Either way, science isn't being taken seriously on its own terms. If Lakoff is correct that the family model is the most fundamental aspect, then science undermines the conservative worldview at its very foundation. This explains the antagnonism towards science.
Even w/ what knowledge about how different behavior (such as severe parental beatings) effect people positively or negatively, there is still a lot of room for debate. I don't see any conflicts between Lakoff's theory on political views in relational to family models as metaphors and the secular understanding of morality's as grounded in human nature I hold however. For one difference, his theory accounts for religious belief which my scope by definition excludes.
@myintellectualjourny Certainly, Lakoff isn't arguing that the religious view is limited to the conservative worldview. However, it does seem that most secularists in present American society are liberal. I wonder how a conservative secularist would justify the Strict Father model in politics knowing that science doesn't support it in terms of beneficial childrearing. Lakoff does point out that some people might apply one model to politics while applying the other model to personal life.
I was wondering about this in terms of an Anarcho-Capitalist such as Stefan Molyneux (YouTube user stefbot). He seems critical of the Strict Father in terms of the government, but the capitalism he is advocating definitely isn't Nurturant Parent. His worldview seems to be a hyper-individualized form of Strict Father where everyone is entirely responsible to themselves. It's an attitude of not being able to trust anyone and so you shouldn't depend on anyone.
Great video.
Khyrid 1 year ago
@Khyrid
Thanks Khyrid! ; )
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
I'm reading George Lakoff's Moral Politics which explains the different moral frameworks that are the basis of liberal & conservative views (which is related to this discussion of religious & secular views). The metaphor used will determine how morality is framed, but the secular view goes beyond this. According to Lakoff, the frame of liberals is the Nurturant Parent which is supported by the scientific research into childrearing. It's moral because it creates socially beneficial behavior.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Hi Marmalade! Thanks for your comment. I'm actually a fan of George Lakoff's ; )
While I never made it through Moral Politics, I did thoroughly enjoy his smaller book Don't Think of An Elephant and a good bit of Metaphor's We Live By.
(I think his theory of different models of family projected onto the state is pretty brilliant.)
Socially beneficial behavior as moral I think is consistent w/ our primary moral concern being how human behavior effects people.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
(cont'd)
Only, when we're talking about why people should be moral, I think we need to address self-interest also. I believe it's in people self-interest to live in a society w/ laws against things like stealing and murder & so to support such laws. But also at the personal level, given it's impact on the quality of one's relationships which is essential to well-being. I guess I'm only adding that "Socially beneficial behavior" is in our individual self-interest also.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
(cont'd 2)
And important for making sense of the language we use / showing how it makes sense from a natural / secular perspective. Lakoff may cover all this as well, I'm not sure ; )
Have you seen Lakoff's presentation to Google? I believe it's still on the google page here.
Cheers : )
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny I've only read maybe a third of Moral Politics. I was already somewhat familiar with Lakoff's writings and I've seen a number videos of him, but I'm gaining insight from this particular book. Lakoff does discuss the issue of self-interest. I don't know to what degree his overall argument intersects with your view. It seems that he considers self-interest as not being the central issue for either the liberal or conservative view, but it plays a part in his discussion.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
Lakoff thinks the framing of family metaphors is the central issue. Within this discussion, self-interest plays various roles. Liberals and conservatives will define self-interest differently and see it as having a different basis and purpose. Nurturant parents want to respect and treat fairly the individual of the child. Strict fathers think a willful child has to be made into a responsible individual. I think the liberal view is more accomodating of the inherent value of the individual.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
Definitely. I find Lakoff's theory on political views to be compelling & know of no better theory 4 explaining them fully. As far as what's in people's best interest, I approach this from a secular perspective, looking at what we can know based on how human behavior positively / negatively effects people in "this world" (or without religious assumptions coming into play - as they do w/ the strict father family model). And by available insights, as not a matter of mere opinion.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny At best, the conservative worldview uses very selectively the scientific research on childrearing. At worse, the conservative worldview utterly dismisses science and holds the Bible as a higher authority. Either way, science isn't being taken seriously on its own terms. If Lakoff is correct that the family model is the most fundamental aspect, then science undermines the conservative worldview at its very foundation. This explains the antagnonism towards science.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
@MarmaladeINFP
(cont'd)
Even w/ what knowledge about how different behavior (such as severe parental beatings) effect people positively or negatively, there is still a lot of room for debate. I don't see any conflicts between Lakoff's theory on political views in relational to family models as metaphors and the secular understanding of morality's as grounded in human nature I hold however. For one difference, his theory accounts for religious belief which my scope by definition excludes.
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Certainly, Lakoff isn't arguing that the religious view is limited to the conservative worldview. However, it does seem that most secularists in present American society are liberal. I wonder how a conservative secularist would justify the Strict Father model in politics knowing that science doesn't support it in terms of beneficial childrearing. Lakoff does point out that some people might apply one model to politics while applying the other model to personal life.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago
I was wondering about this in terms of an Anarcho-Capitalist such as Stefan Molyneux (YouTube user stefbot). He seems critical of the Strict Father in terms of the government, but the capitalism he is advocating definitely isn't Nurturant Parent. His worldview seems to be a hyper-individualized form of Strict Father where everyone is entirely responsible to themselves. It's an attitude of not being able to trust anyone and so you shouldn't depend on anyone.
MarmaladeINFP 1 year ago