Based on anthropologist Richard Shweder’s ideas, Jonathan Haidt and Craig Joseph developed the theory that humans have six basic moral modules that are elaborated in varying degrees over culture and time. The six modules characterized by Haidt as a “tongue with six taste receptors” are Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/degradation, and Liberty/oppression. I thought it would be interesting to organize articles I read into these six moral taste buds and post them here as a blog of varied reading suggestions to stimulate conversation not just on various themes but also on how they may affect our moral taste buds in different ways. To some of you, an article that appeals to my Fairness taste bud may appeal to your taste bud on Authority.
I had planned to post this blog yesterday, but it got delayed. Today, I can’t write a blog without mentioning guns. Given that gun violence is a preventable public health tragedy, which moral taste bud do you favor when considering gun violence? Care and Fairness taste buds are important to me.
I’ve only ever been a parent in the United States, where gun violence is a feature rather than a bug, and my childhood in India has provided no context for this feature. But, I can say that India has not provided me with reference points for several other cultural features that I can embrace, with the exception of this country’s gun culture. It is one aspect of American culture that most foreign nationals, including resident aliens like myself, find difficult to grasp, regardless of how long you have lived here. I’d like to see a cultural shift that views gun ownership as unsettling and undesirable. I know it is wishful thinking, but aren’t irrational ideas salvation by imagination?
Though I’m not an expert on guns and conflict, I can think broadly using two general arguments on deterrence, namely:
A) The general argument in favor of expanding civilian gun ownership is that it deters violence at the local level.
B) The general case for countries acquiring nuclear weapons is that it deters the escalation of international conflict.
I sense an instinctual contradiction when A) and B) are linked to the United States. The US favors a martial culture based on deterrence by expanding civilian gun ownership within its borders while actively preventing the same concept of deterrence from taking hold on a global scale with nuclear weapons. Why? The US understands that rogue states lacking credible checks and balances can harm the international community by abusing nuclear power. Surprisingly, this concept of controlling nuclear ammunition is not effectively translated when it comes to domestic firearms control. I get that trying to maintain a global monopoly on nuclear weapons appeals to the Authority taste bud, but does expanding firearms domestically in the face of an endless spiral of tragedies appeal just to the Liberty taste bud? Where are your Care and Fairness taste buds languishing?
Care: The Compassionate Invisibilization Of Homelessness: Where Revanchist And Supportive City Policies Meet/ Liberal US Cities Including Portland Change Course, Now Clearing Homeless Camps
[I’m sharing these two articles because my recent trip to Portland, Oregon, revealed some truly disturbing civic tragedies hidden within a sphere of natural wonders. I hadn’t expected such a high rate of homelessness. It’s a shame. “Rent control does not control the rent,” Thomas Sowell accurately asserts.]
Fairness: America Has Never Really Understood India
[I’d like to highlight one example of how “rules-based order” affected India: In the 1960s, India faced a severe food shortage and became heavily reliant on US food aid. Nehru had just died, and his successor, Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri, called upon the nation to skip at least one meal per week! Soon after, Shastri died, and Prime Minister Indira Gandhi took over, only to be humiliated by US President Lyndon B. Johnson for becoming dependent on food aid from his country. The progressive US President was irked by India’s lack of support for his Vietnam policy. So he vowed to keep India on a “ship-to-mouth” policy, whereby he would release ships carrying food grain only after food shortages reached a point of desperation. Never to face this kind of humiliation, India shifted from its previous institutional approach to agricultural policy to one based on technology and remunerative prices for farmers. The Green Revolution began, and India achieved self-sufficiency. The harsh lesson, however, remains: in international relations, India is better off being skeptical of self-congratulatory labels like “leader of the free world,” “do-gooders,” “progressives,” and so on.]
Liberty: Can Islam Be Liberal? / Where Islam And Reason Meet
[I would like to add that, in the name of advocating liberalism for all, personal liberty is often emphasized over collectivist rights in the majority, while collectivist rights are allowed to take precedence over personal liberty in minority groups, and all religious communities suffer as a result.]
Loyalty: Black-Robed Reactionaries: Has The Supreme Court Been Bad For The American Republic?
[Is it all about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Supreme Court Majority?]
Authority: How Curing Aging Could Help Progress
[In my opinion, the indefinite future that awaits us compels us to contextualize our current activities and lives. What do you think will happen if anti-aging technology advances beyond the limits of our evolutionary environment? Furthermore, according to demographer James Vaupel, medical science has already unintentionally delayed the average person’s aging process by ten years [Vaupel, James W. “Biodemography of human ageing.” Nature 464.7288 (2010): 536-542]. We have 10 extra years of mobility compared to people living in the nineteenth century; 10 extra years without heart disease, stroke, or dementia; and 10 years of subjectively feeling healthy.]
Sanctity: India and the Indian: Hinduism, Caste Act As Unifying Forces In The Country
[Here is my gaze-reversal on caste as a moderate Hindu looking at a complacent American society: If caste is a social division or sorting based on wealth, inherited rank or privilege, or profession, then it exists in almost every nation or culture. Regardless of religious affiliation, there is an undeniable sorting of American society based on the intense matching of people based on wealth, political ideology, and education. These “American castes,” not without racial or ethnic animus, organize people according to education, income, and social class, resulting in more intense sorting along political lines. As a result, Democrats and Republicans are more likely to live in different neighborhoods and marry among themselves, which is reflected in increased polarization in Congress and perpetual governmental gridlock. The intensification of “American castes,” in my opinion, is to blame for much of the political polarization. What is the United States doing about these castes? Don’t tell me that developing more identity-centered political movements will solve it.]
I intend to regularly blog under this heading. To be clear, I refer to regularly using the Liberty taste bud rather than Fairness.
8 thoughts on “Stimuli For Your Moral Taste Buds”
Doesn’t the second amendment rest more upon the “security of a free state” than upon self defense?
The idea of a professional standing army seemed at odds with the newly formed republic to the individuals who drafted the constitution. As a result, each state was supposed to raise its own militia to protect itself if the state became vulnerable. As a result, the individual right to acquire firearms was required to establish militias to protect the state. Since the Civil War, the United States has maintained a professional standing army, and militias have fallen out of favor, as has the importance of the first clause of the Second Amendment. In other words, gun ownership is centered on the second clause of the Second Amendment, which addresses the individual right to own firearms [for self-defense or otherwise]; the highly clever Antonin Scalia acknowledged this in the DC v Heller decision, whose wit and insight I like on various subjects except for his overall take on this one. According to what I’ve read, this second clause was highly relevant in the day and age of frontier culture. Today’s frontier is in space exploration and protecting oneself against cybercrime, making the emotions behind gun ownership a stubborn attachment rather than a thoughtful and liberating right. Philosophically, rights and duties should serve to free oneself rather than tying one up in knots of attachment. Don’t you think so?
I like the premise of grouping by “moral teasers” instead of the, more usual, theme-based presentations (or lack of grouping at all), well done. Did not get the time to delve deeper, yet.
A mild criticism only: You almost lost me with the opening line. Maybe I’m just a sucker for fancy openings, but I think it offered no good service in an otherwise very promising and thoughtful series.
Thank you for the feedback! I agree. I didn’t think of a hook line to start. Usually, I rewrite the beginning after finishing a write-up but this time I didn’t do that.
Hey Vishnu, rewriting, yes!
My own comment seems now a bit wordy and borderline spiteful (you correctly understood it was not, thankfully), I should have reworked it, too.
Please keep it coming; I need it. When I switch from writing for research manuscripts [which is happening a lot more these days] to blogging, I get the writing equivalent of jet lag. As a result. in my non-academic writing, I either doubt myself or sleepwalk through it.
Regarding your comment: “the emotions behind gun ownership a stubborn attachment rather than a thoughtful and liberating right.”
Tell that to the Ukrainians.
[…] [Here’s the previous edition of Stimuli For Your Moral Taste Buds] […]