ScottH - please slow down and note that I'm not discussing Haidt's argument, but the use Arthur Brooks makes of it.
J. Wanless SouthwickMay 10, 2019
Despite the imperfections, can we learn to love as God loves? "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12
KjcoMay 9, 2019
The ying & yang balance referenced only works when it's not a 5-2 ratio. That makes for an awfully lopsided, bumpy & precarious wheel on which to ride.
ScottHMay 9, 2019
I appreciate Dr. Hancock's discussion of our society's current cultural morass. His observation that liberal thought can be as repressive as conservative approaches is noteworthy. But Dr. Hancock seems to misrepresent Dr. Haidt's moral foundations theory in order to use it as a cudgel for beating up on liberals.
Johnathan Haidt himself, at least as I understand his thinking, does not suggest that liberals that hew mainly to care and fairness are inferior to conservatives that embrace these factors plus loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Rather, he paints the two views as complementary and necessary for balance; as yin and yang. One view promotes the virtues of change while the other advocates the value of stability. Each needs the other to prevent going too far, since fully realizing either goal would lead to worse horrors than they seek to solve.
Moreover, Haidt calls for people of all persuasions to get outside of their ideological "teams" and focus on common threats, since humans are quite good at addressing common problems (that are recognized as such) but are not so good at finding common ground.
The "I'm right and you're wrong" approach taken in this article and in so many other facets of our culture leads us to mainly focus on that which divides us instead of that which unites us. Contempt for differing viewpoints may help us feel secure in our principles, but at the cost of blessing God's children as we otherwise might.
Like it or not, we live in a pluralistic society. Most walk the broad roads and few travel the narrow path to eternal life. Disciples of Christ are tasked with holding firmly to God's commandments while simultaneously working to bless as many of God's children in as many ways as possible. Easy? No. But nobody ever said it would be.
Charles KrautMay 9, 2019
This is a very important article. It defines one of the most critical issues of our time, and cuts to the heart of what our "society" is really all about.
The ramifications of settling for two of the five criteria is what we have experienced ever since the Sexual Revolution began and well-meaning, nominally Christian parents, teachers, leaders, and others began acknowledging and then defending their and others' children's right to choose. Absent the moral component, we are no better than animals.
As Americans, we were meant to be self-governing under our Constitution. That document was inspired by the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims the supremacy of natural rights. Our foolish pursuit of human rights in place of natural rights is rapidly destroying our society and civilization itself.
Thank you for sharing this article. I would not have wanted to miss it.
Julie DunfordMay 9, 2019
Bravo!!! This is the most intelligent and true article I have ever seen on this subject! Well done! Thank you for bringing this to light and articulating it so well!
Comments | Return to Story
Gene SchaerrMay 13, 2019
Excellent!
Ralph C HancockMay 11, 2019
ScottH - please slow down and note that I'm not discussing Haidt's argument, but the use Arthur Brooks makes of it.
J. Wanless SouthwickMay 10, 2019
Despite the imperfections, can we learn to love as God loves? "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." John 15:12
KjcoMay 9, 2019
The ying & yang balance referenced only works when it's not a 5-2 ratio. That makes for an awfully lopsided, bumpy & precarious wheel on which to ride.
ScottHMay 9, 2019
I appreciate Dr. Hancock's discussion of our society's current cultural morass. His observation that liberal thought can be as repressive as conservative approaches is noteworthy. But Dr. Hancock seems to misrepresent Dr. Haidt's moral foundations theory in order to use it as a cudgel for beating up on liberals. Johnathan Haidt himself, at least as I understand his thinking, does not suggest that liberals that hew mainly to care and fairness are inferior to conservatives that embrace these factors plus loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Rather, he paints the two views as complementary and necessary for balance; as yin and yang. One view promotes the virtues of change while the other advocates the value of stability. Each needs the other to prevent going too far, since fully realizing either goal would lead to worse horrors than they seek to solve. Moreover, Haidt calls for people of all persuasions to get outside of their ideological "teams" and focus on common threats, since humans are quite good at addressing common problems (that are recognized as such) but are not so good at finding common ground. The "I'm right and you're wrong" approach taken in this article and in so many other facets of our culture leads us to mainly focus on that which divides us instead of that which unites us. Contempt for differing viewpoints may help us feel secure in our principles, but at the cost of blessing God's children as we otherwise might. Like it or not, we live in a pluralistic society. Most walk the broad roads and few travel the narrow path to eternal life. Disciples of Christ are tasked with holding firmly to God's commandments while simultaneously working to bless as many of God's children in as many ways as possible. Easy? No. But nobody ever said it would be.
Charles KrautMay 9, 2019
This is a very important article. It defines one of the most critical issues of our time, and cuts to the heart of what our "society" is really all about. The ramifications of settling for two of the five criteria is what we have experienced ever since the Sexual Revolution began and well-meaning, nominally Christian parents, teachers, leaders, and others began acknowledging and then defending their and others' children's right to choose. Absent the moral component, we are no better than animals. As Americans, we were meant to be self-governing under our Constitution. That document was inspired by the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims the supremacy of natural rights. Our foolish pursuit of human rights in place of natural rights is rapidly destroying our society and civilization itself. Thank you for sharing this article. I would not have wanted to miss it.
Julie DunfordMay 9, 2019
Bravo!!! This is the most intelligent and true article I have ever seen on this subject! Well done! Thank you for bringing this to light and articulating it so well!
NancyMay 9, 2019
Brilliant analysis!
ADD A COMMENT