Morality

One of the difficulties of using morality to argue against nuclear weapons is that morality is so hard to define. It ought not to be - right and wrong is one of the most clear cut distinctions in human experience. The problem is that people can disagree about what is right.

Using morality to argue against nuclear weapons only works if everyone agrees on the idea that nuclear weapons represent something bad. Which - after 60 years of trying - they don't seem to do.

I was reminded of the fact that while liberals see the wrongness of nuclear weapons as obvious, plain, indisputable, conservatives do not. Liberals are so sure that they're right that they claim that people who don't see things their way are "psychically numb" or suffering some form of "denial."

I don't know how to build a consensus among differing views on nuclear weapons, but I thought this analysis of the differences between the way liberals and conservatives view morality was fascinating. It's a TED talk and if you haven't explored these amazing talks by distinguished speakers, you might enjoy doing so. They're all smart, they stimulate and challenge and they're all no longer than 20 minutes long."

This one's by psychologist Jonathan Haidt: The Real Difference Between Liberals and Conservatives.

Comments

[Russ Wellen]

What liberals and progressives don't get about conservatives is that the latter actually believe that dealing with transgressors of any sort -- from their children to terrorists -- with compassion is actually immoral. They believe that only enables and encourages them in their wrongdoing.

It's odd to think of compassion and empathy as simply traits waiting to be exploited by "evil doers." But we have to understand that's a large part of the conservative value system. Remember: They think man is fundamentally evil.

Nice to see you made it on to NukeTube TV, Ward!