Steve Stewart-Williams's post at Nature-Nurture-Nietzsche links to a paper by Jake Womick and colleagues about different definitions of victimhood between liberals and conservatives.
In general, liberals see vulnerability as group-based, dividing the moral world into groups of vulnerable victims and invulnerable oppressors. Conservatives downplay group-based differences, seeing vulnerability as more individual and evenly distributed.
Womick thinks this division makes more sense than Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations and fits the experimental data better. That is encouraging to me, as I very much liked Haidt's research at first despite some flaws I noted, and was disappointed when its predictive value was not holding up as well as expected.
No comments:
Post a Comment