“David, admit it, you want a one world government. What you’ll get is the Tower of Babel, the Kingdom of the Antichrist.”

Seems to me if you simply don’t believe in the Abrahamic Old Man in the Sky all you get is World Government – and about time. We’ve all seen that it is just one little blue rock that we all live on – something old Abraham couldn’t have known so we can forgive him and move on.

You’ve rendered your own commentary irrelevant, Zippy.

- You apparently don’t appreciate that an economy can combine elements of socialism and capitalism,

Of course it can, Zippy. Ours already does. That’s why it’s in so much trouble. A capitalist economy doesn’t function when it’s distorted by overweening government to reward sloth, corruption or even mere existence.

Our economy has been most productive when tax rates have been most progressive. The exact opposite of your hypothesis. A capitalist economy is, again, a fantasy – no such thing exists. All economies are mixed – it’s just a matter of the proportions, and you and I happen to differ on the balance of yin and yang that we prefer. No biggie. That’s why we have elections.

This is it for you, Zippy – did you think NO ONE would go look up that quote??? Your cherry-picked snippet constitutes a COMPLETE LIE.

Not at all, I expected you to come back with a lame attempt to justify your interpretation.

…as a secular liberal I agree that contractual societies such as those of Western Europe offer the best hope for living peacefully together in our increasingly diverse modern nations (although it remains to be seen if Europe can solve its current diversity problems).

I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people.

You’re now a proven liar, Zippy.

Except you can’t cite a lie I told. Just more of the same hyperbole. As Haidt clearly states, contractual societies are the best hope for living peacefully together. Religious people may be happier,etc. – but that’s not what’s at issue. We’re talking about morality, and the basis for moral society.

4) Morality is about more than harm and fairness. In moral psychology and moral philosophy, morality is almost always about how people treat each other. Here’s an influential definition from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel: morality refers to “prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other.”

Kohlberg thought that all of morality, including concerns about the welfare of others, could be derived from the psychology of justice. Carol Gilligan convinced the field that an ethic of “care” had a separate developmental trajectory, and was not derived from concerns about justice.

OK, so there are two psychological systems, one about fairness/justice, and one about care and protection of the vulnerable. And if you look at the many books on the evolution of morality, most of them focus exclusively on those two systems, with long discussions of Robert Trivers’ reciprocal altruism (to explain fairness) and of kin altruism and/or attachment theory to explain why we don’t like to see suffering and often care for people who are not our children.

But if you try to apply this two-foundation morality to the rest of the world, you either fail or you become Procrustes [read: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Hitler, et al., Zippy]. Most traditional societies care about a lot more than harm/care and fairness/justice. Why do so many societies care deeply and morally about menstruation, food taboos, sexuality, and respect for elders and the Gods? You can’t just dismiss this stuff as social convention. If you want to describe human morality, rather than the morality of educated Western academics, you’ve got to include the Durkheimian view that morality is in large part about binding people together.

You lied. You got caught. You got pwned.

No such thing. Haidt is describing exactly what I did above. Morality in stone age/traditional societies is deeply concerned with the binding intuitions – as I noted above. Moreover, as I noted, the failure to recognize these moral intuitions can lead to cases like Stalin – not because he employed a leftist moral framework, but because he exploited a society that was still functioning primarily on a tribal moral framework. So no, it can’t be dismissed – it must be recognized, and seen for the dangerous cultural force that it can become.

I recognize the existence of these moral intuitions – but I see no argument here to accept them as an organizing principle for an egalitarian society.

Game. Set. Match.

You can send me my winnings at the usual address.

Peace.

DS

Heh. Heheh. Willfully blind to the end, aren’t you Zippy. Yes… they’re “evolving” alright – into a cross between Eurabia and a rerun of the Soviet Union. I’ve seen both those movies. I only needed to see them once to remember that they don’t end well.

- Your definition of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society is a joke.
Obviously you either (1) failed to follow the link or (2) covered your eyes when faced with the truth. Keep running into the wall, Zippy.

- not only are you entertaining the fantasy that Reaganomics were the answer to all of our troubles,
Straw man fallacy.

- but you are trying to avoid the obvious role of the New Deal, Great Society and Labor in crafting what you call the “best example of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society in history”.
Not at all – I described in lots of detail what the welfare state has brought to America: ruin.

- Haidt indicates no such thing.
Refusing to hear it doesn’t mean he hasn’t said it and written it, in multiple forums. Sticking fingers in ears and shouting “LALALALALA” like you are – that’s what adolescents do.

In case you haven’t noticed, BHO was elected democratically, by a rather large margin.
30% of the voting-eligible public isn’t a “large margin”, Zippy. And as has already been demonstrated by Bill Whittle – using the words of BHO’s lying, entrenched, Fifth Column media shills – BHO was elected by a sycophant press that showered his every utterance and swagger with adulation and attacked his opponents like rabid ferrets on meth…. for over a year.

- His policies and legislative experience, and his knowledge of the Constitution, are the perfect antidote to the truly authoritarian regime that he replaced. Warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial detention, and illegal torture are all elements of authoritarianism that came from the GOP
Most or all of which he has been continuing. Good plan.

- The question itself is silly …
Of course you think it’s silly – it’s the only important question. You have to dismiss it because you can’t address it.

- Ah, but your own moral intuitions put the lie to this. Despite the selection for self-interest, there has been a parallel selection occurring based on collective interests.
Where? Oh yeah – at the point of a gun… like I said.

- You defend a stone-age morality,
Straw man fallacy.

- – but those of us on the left have managed to abandon these failed intuitions,
Right. Soros and Moore and all the celebrities who jealously guard what they believe to be the moral high ground in Hollywood have abandoned capitalism, and given away all their money because they don’t deserve to have more than others. Dream on.

- You apparently don’t appreciate that an economy can combine elements of socialism and capitalism,
Of course it can, Zippy. Ours already does. That’s why it’s in so much trouble. A capitalist economy doesn’t function when it’s distorted by overweening government to reward sloth, corruption or even mere existence.

- From Haidt:

…contractual societies such as those of Western Europe offer the best hope for living peacefully together in our increasingly diverse modern nations

This is it for you, Zippy – did you think NO ONE would go look up that quote??? Your cherry-picked snippet constitutes a COMPLETE LIE. You’ve intentionally misrepresented Haidt’s intent here – exactly like Mofo did a few days ago by crypoquoting Madison. HERE is what Haidt wrote, with the necessary context restored (my emphasis):
 

…as a secular liberal I agree that contractual societies such as those of Western Europe offer the best hope for living peacefully together in our increasingly diverse modern nations (although it remains to be seen if Europe can solve its current diversity problems).

I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people.

You’re now a proven liar, Zippy. And to boot, here’s the meat that you missed when you seized on the first string of words that matched the ones tattooed on the inside of your forehead (same cite, my emph.):
 

4) Morality is about more than harm and fairness. In moral psychology and moral philosophy, morality is almost always about how people treat each other. Here’s an influential definition from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel: morality refers to “prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other.”

Kohlberg thought that all of morality, including concerns about the welfare of others, could be derived from the psychology of justice. Carol Gilligan convinced the field that an ethic of “care” had a separate developmental trajectory, and was not derived from concerns about justice.

OK, so there are two psychological systems, one about fairness/justice, and one about care and protection of the vulnerable. And if you look at the many books on the evolution of morality, most of them focus exclusively on those two systems, with long discussions of Robert Trivers’ reciprocal altruism (to explain fairness) and of kin altruism and/or attachment theory to explain why we don’t like to see suffering and often care for people who are not our children.

But if you try to apply this two-foundation morality to the rest of the world, you either fail or you become Procrustes [read: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Mussolini, Hitler, et al., Zippy]. Most traditional societies care about a lot more than harm/care and fairness/justice. Why do so many societies care deeply and morally about menstruation, food taboos, sexuality, and respect for elders and the Gods? You can’t just dismiss this stuff as social convention. If you want to describe human morality, rather than the morality of educated Western academics, you’ve got to include the Durkheimian view that morality is in large part about binding people together.

You lied. You got caught. You got pwned.

Game. Set. Match.

As Europe devolves into the EU that is morphing into the EUSSR – and will ultimately be forced to merge with Putin’s reimagined USSR (because they’ve chosen to make an enemy of the U.S.) – it is dying in every way that matters: demographically, economically, spiritually, culturally and morally. This is what happens when a People rely on government as a surrogate for Mommy, looking for support from cradle-to-grave… emphasis on the grave.

European societies are not dying – they are evolving. That’s what societies do. No society is stagnant, because success requires being adaptable to the changing material circumstances of the world. A society that does not embrace the inevitability of demographic, economic, spiritual, cultural and moral progress is less adaptable – that is why the left’s moral vision has been the guiding principle of representative governments since the enlightenment. So-called conservative moral intuitions serve to frustrate efforts at building a truly sustainable society.

I will say that up until about 1992 we had the best example of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society in all of history right here in the America that was built on conservative principles of respect for individual freedom/responsibility, the Republican form of Government Guaranteed by our Constitution and a capitalist economic engine that literally unleashes the power of the individual to improve the median quality of life. Demonstrably so.

Your definition of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society is a joke. If you really believe that the USA circa 1992 fulfills these three criteria, my work here is going to be more difficult than I expected.

But then the effects of creeping socialism, initiated back in the 30s and further entrenched in the 60s and 70s, really started to take hold.

Ah, yes, not only are you entertaining the fantasy that Reaganomics were the answer to all of our troubles, but you are trying to avoid the obvious role of the New Deal, Great Society and Labor in crafting what you call the “best example of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society in history”. Ideology has truly blinded you.

It is only with the reversal of liberal policies under Nixon, Reagan and Bush that our country experienced an increase in income inequality, massive government indebtedness, and unrestricted economic speculation that led to our current worldwide recession. The slide in fitness, education, motivation and international relations can be traced almost entirely to the poverty-inducing policies of the GOP. All of the ills you cite are the results of folks with conservative moral foundations who have worked to sow division based on group identification.

- Your contention that the leftist mind is morally incomplete is merely your unconventional interpretation of Haidt, …

Haidt himself has indicated this directly every time he speaks to the leftists he chides for lacking in moral diversity, telling them that they need a more holistic moral mind in order to remain relevant. He softens that with some mystical hand-waving, but his point is clear: the left lacks critical ethical sand, and the place they need to look for it is in conservative morality.

Haidt indicates no such thing. He doesn’t chide leftists for lacking in moral diversity, but for failing to appreciate the importance of the intuitive ethics that drive others, and the opportunity they represent to deepen understanding. FYI, building your ethics on sand is not smart – that’s why rejecting the three conservative ethics is the best solution – they represent only the shifting sands of current practice.

If the left rejected authoritarianism, they wouldn’t have elected BHO, whose policies and utter lack of leadership experience demand authoritarian management of the entire population in order to meet his “social justice” goals.

In case you haven’t noticed, BHO was elected democratically, by a rather large margin. His policies and legislative experience, and his knowledge of the Constitution, are the perfect antidote to the truly authoritarian regime that he replaced. Warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial detention, and illegal torture are all elements of authoritarianism that came from the GOP – and are being reversed under Obama. So keep telling yourself how authoritarian he is. Just remember it was the GOP guy that decided habeas corpus was optional.

So the question YOU need to ask yourself is this: how did the leftist ideology of Marx become so utterly corrupted at the hands of Stalin, who claimed (emphasis on claimed) to support it? Same with Mao, et al. When you figure that out, you’ll be halfway to understanding why your moral framework is far from complete and why leftist ideologies are socially suicidal.

The question itself is silly – Marxism is not a political or ideological system, it is a theory of history based on economic and political observations. There have certainly been a diversity of movements that have used Marx as their inspiration, or have claimed to. Students of Marx recognize the difference. In answer to your question regarding Stalin: absolute power corrupts absolutely. That has nothing to do with Marx.

- Socialism is not totalitarian.

Ultimately, given the current Darwinian status of homo sapiens, socialism must be totalitarian by definition.

Socialism need not be totalitarian, despite your opinion on the matter. Democratic socialism is actually quite popular.

The human species has selected for selfish, self-preserving, self-interested, individualistic behavior over millennia to become the overwhelmingly dominant species in existence (that we know of). You won’t change the behavior driven by millions of years of evolution with a slogan or a warm-and-fuzzy-sounding ‘ism’. You’ll need a gun. History is replete with proof that while human beings are by nature social, they are by nature averse to socialism.

Ah, but your own moral intuitions put the lie to this. Despite the selection for self-interest, there has been a parallel selection occurring based on collective interests. You defend a stone-age morality, claiming that it can’t be changed without a gun – but those of us on the left have managed to abandon these failed intuitions, and move forward with a rational and enlightened morality. What you are really saying is that you are willing to use violence to enforce your own interpretation of morality – exactly the kind of moral reasoning that led to Stalin and Mao.

- These are the three ethics that make possible all political oppression.

Here you’re clearly delusional. A social policy based solely on “fairness” and “reciprocity”, for instance, requires an unimpeachable, reliable arbiter of what’s “fair”. Here’s the problem: there is no such being. And unless you believe in an all-powerful God made manifest – like, say, Christ – there will likely never be one.

Of course there is no perfect solution – but our judicial system is a workable means of providing a practical answer to this question, and has functioned reliably in this capacity for many generations. Democracy doesn’t need God to work.

You apparently don’t appreciate that an economy can combine elements of socialism and capitalism, and that the most effective economies do this well. Socialism comes in many flavors, friend. Single payer health care doesn’t mean there is no longer room for the free exchange of other goods and services.

Both the left and the right can agree on the importance of the Fairness and Harm ethics. I agree with you that the authority, in-group and purity ethics are very strong motivators of behavior for many, typically those on the right. I disagree with your interpretation that this indicates a lack on the part of those on the left, or that a moral framework that includes all five of these ethics is superior in any objective sense. I cannot deny that there may be a competitive or evolutionary advantage to groups that make use of the conservative ethics – but I believe these advantages are not sufficient to outweigh the negative results of relying on these ethics overall.

From Haidt:

…contractual societies such as those of Western Europe offer the best hope for living peacefully together in our increasingly diverse modern nations

To the extent that conservative ethics promote intergroup conflict, they detract from human flourishing, and the wise course is to therefore reject them. Our common grounding in the Fairness and Harm ethics as embodied in contractual societies is the ultimate answer to this problem. The stone age tribal religions of the world cannot be reconciled on their own terms – they must come to a common understanding of morality that does not respect authority, in-group and purity as moral considerations.

Peace.

DS

As Europe devolves into the EU that is morphing into the EUSSR – and will ultimately be forced to merge with Putin’s reimagined USSR (because they’ve chosen to make an enemy of the U.S.) – it is dying in every way that matters: demographically, economically, spiritually, culturally and morally. This is what happens when a People rely on government as a surrogate for Mommy, looking for support from cradle-to-grave… emphasis on the grave.

- facts are the currency I’m dealing in here.
Well then I’m sure you’ll be happy to leave mysticism out of it. We’ll leave aside that you clearly have no understanding of Christian mysticism as philosophy. For instance, I think it unlikely that Schuon ever came up at school, except perhaps as the brunt of a liberal joke. You can take that up with Bob (see link in previous post) if you’re really interested in learning.

- Without defining moral progress or your vision of a sustainable society, …
I don’t need to. Haidt has already defined those in the context of his research. I will say that up until about 1992 we had the best example of a successful, sustainable, exceptional society in all of history right here in the America that was built on conservative principles of respect for individual freedom/responsibility, the Republican form of Government Guaranteed by our Constitution and a capitalist economic engine that literally unleashes the power of the individual to improve the median quality of life. Demonstrably so.

But then the effects of creeping socialism, initiated back in the 30s and further entrenched in the 60s and 70s, really started to take hold. Since then we’ve become fatter, more ignorant, more apathetic, less liked and more feared abroad, more corrupt, less patriotic and more conflicted at home, more vulnerable to outside terrorist attack, more vulnerable to internal social rot, deeper in debt, less happy, more angry and generally more like Europe. With the current administration and Congress, the slide will only accelerate.

- I appreciate your confidence in expecting that Haidt and myself will come to appreciate your point of view on this issue. However, you have failed to make a compelling argument that this will occur…
That’s why I call it “faith”. I don’t need to make a compelling argument because I don’t feel compelled to compel you to believe it. It’ll happen or it won’t. My expectation – based on decades of experience and seeing daily expressions like Inrptrn’s above (YO Inrptrn!!) – is that it will.

- Your contention that the leftist mind is morally incomplete is merely your unconventional interpretation of Haidt, …
Again, that’s not MY interpretation, unconventional or otherwise. Haidt himself has indicated this directly every time he speaks to the leftists he chides for lacking in moral diversity, telling them that they need a more holistic moral mind in order to remain relevant. He softens that with some mystical hand-waving, but his point is clear: the left lacks critical ethical sand, and the place they need to look for it is in conservative morality.

- Brute force, coercion and murder are not compatible with the two intuitive ethics of harm and fairness.
Now you’re getting an inkling of what I was talking about earlier.

- Except that the left’s ideology rejects authoritarianism, which is fundamentally in conflict with Stalinism.
If the left rejected authoritarianism, they wouldn’t have elected BHO, whose policies and utter lack of leadership experience demand authoritarian management of the entire population in order to meet his “social justice” goals. So the question YOU need to ask yourself is this: how did the leftist ideology of Marx become so utterly corrupted at the hands of Stalin, who claimed (emphasis on claimed) to support it? Same with Mao, et al. When you figure that out, you’ll be halfway to understanding why your moral framework is far from complete and why leftist ideologies are socially suicidal.

- Socialism is not totalitarian.
Ultimately, given the current Darwinian status of homo sapiens, socialism must be totalitarian by definition. People aren’t bees and they’re not ants and they’re not termites. The human species has selected for selfish, self-preserving, self-interested, individualistic behavior over millennia to become the overwhelmingly dominant species in existence (that we know of). You won’t change the behavior driven by millions of years of evolution with a slogan or a warm-and-fuzzy-sounding ‘ism’. You’ll need a gun. History is replete with proof that while human beings are by nature social, they are by nature averse to socialism.

- You continue to pretend that authoritarianism can thrive in the absence of the ethics of authority, in-group and purity – but it can’t.
I haven’t asserted anything about authoritarianism. You’re the one who seems to be stuck on that term. Obviously you never looked up the difference between authority and authoritarian. Do so. When you finally stop projecting straw men onto me – and conservatives in general – in that context, you’ll start to understand what’s real and what’s (your) fantasy.

- These are the three ethics that make possible all political oppression.
Here you’re clearly delusional. A social policy based solely on “fairness” and “reciprocity”, for instance, requires an unimpeachable, reliable arbiter of what’s “fair”. Here’s the problem: there is no such being. And unless you believe in an all-powerful God made manifest – like, say, Christ – there will likely never be one.

The only available alternative to an unimpeachable, reliable arbiter of what’s “fair” is arbitrary redistribution of wealth based on discredited, zero-sum economics that recognize nothing but “need”, “equal shares”, “equality of outcome”, etc. – oh, with a hefty extra share provided to those who are playing the role of God, of course (it’s a tough job replacing God). Such a system completely ignores the concepts of reward for individual effort, reward for willingness to take on individual risk and reward for individual productivity. Such a system replaces those concepts with a single tenet: reward for breathing, where the reward is derived from the fruits of others’ efforts. That is the most politically oppressive arrangement imaginable. That’s socialism.

- I am not pretending that conservatives reject harm and fairness…
Sure you are; that’s the very basis of your irrational diatribe here. If you weren’t you’d recognize what Haidt recognizes: the value of the holistic moral framework that defines conservative morality.

- Your opinion on the nature of sustainable societies is welcome, but wrong.
Wrong… based on your opinion and willful blindness to centuries of human progress? Heh. Okay.

- Your personal definition of moral maturity is merely a reflection of your own preconceived notions about what morality consists of.
Again, no. It’s based on clinical research in moral psychology based on tests specifically designed to measure morality, coupled with the science of human psychological development and the manner in which different aspects of one’s psyche mature. Before being exposed to all that I never even HAD a notion – preconceived or otherwise – that morality (per se) had anything to do with one’s choice of ideology. But it turns out that ideology – at least when it comes to sustainable social policy – is more like phlogiston. The key to understanding why the flame burns out is to recognize that it’s caused by a lack of oxygen (i.e., holistic morality).

@60. David S: – How you equate single payer healthcare with social suicide is unclear.

When a People give their government that much control over their lives (and deaths), and the truly corrupt, amoral actors in that society float to the top levels of government, like fatty feces (as they always do – see earlier about Stalin), you have the equivalent of suicide on a national, societal scale.

That’s funny – Europe doesn’t seem to have died – in fact, after fifty years of socialist health care, Europe now is healthier and wealthier than the USA. Go figure.

I could launch into a lecture about Christian mysticism here (although former leftist Bob Godwin is much better at that), noting how leftists consistently browbeat conservatives whenever we use the mysticism of God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit and religion to justify a position, but I won’t since I’m sure you get my point.

Yes, I get it. You don’t fully understand the difference between philosophy and religion. You can use mysticism to justify whatever you like, but facts are the currency I’m dealing in here.

Moral progress leading to sustainable societies has only ever resulted from the application of holistic morality, which incorporates all five intuitive ethics relatively equally. In essence, by incorporating all five, one “transcends” the negative aspects of all five.

Without defining moral progress or your vision of a sustainable society, you’ve said little. Obviously your vision of morality and sustainability is at odds with mine. I don’t think it is sustainable to pursue intuitive ethics that encourage societal discord based on arbitrary associations. Your contention that the morality of conservatives is “more holistic” doesn’t answer the question of whether it is more effective, or more desirable. In my view, a morality that depends on in-group, purity and authority is anathema. It is a recipe for disaster.

I appreciate your confidence in expecting that Haidt and myself will come to appreciate your point of view on this issue. However, you have failed to make a compelling argument that this will occur, and have only provided the anecdotal evidence of your conversion and witness. I can just as easily point to my parallel experience as a former libertarian who has come to appreciate the value of some government intervention in securing basic rights for the People. I’ve lost count of the number of people I know who similarly support government social programs. It’s not a matter of identity politics – simply enlightened self-interest. I know plenty of folks who exercise the intuitive ethics of authority, in-group and purity – but they are universally unpleasant persons to spend time with, because they fail to appreciate the diversity and tolerance that undergird civil society.

Your contention that the leftist mind is morally incomplete is merely your unconventional interpretation of Haidt, which you use as a safety blanket when called on the immorality of your ideology. There is no basis in his work to assert that the left is deficient – and looking at the international data, it is quite clear that there are two universal moral intuitions, and three that are vestigial remnants of our tribal past. My moral mind is complete – I understand the concepts of authority, in-group and purity – but I have intentionally set them aside as irrelevant to morality. They are counter-moral impulses.

- Stalin’s gulags, the Khmer Rouge’s killing fields and the Soviet Union all relied on exploiting the authority, purity and in-group ‘ethics’.

No. They relied on brute force, coercion and murder to impose a marxist – leftist – ideology.

Brute force, coercion and murder are not compatible with the two intuitive ethics of harm and fairness. One can only countenance such behavior by activating the authority, in-group and purity ethics, which can be manipulated to override the fundamental moral intuitions we all share. A person whose morals are based solely on the harm and fairness ethics would not find such behavior moral. You are willfully ignoring the consequences of your own arguments.

- It is fundamentally dishonest to claim that Stalin represents the ideal of the left.

That may be true, since it’s hard to know what Stalin’s real ideological beliefs were, if he had any. But it’s irrelevant because that’s not what I’ve done. Go back and read for comprehension. All I’ve said is that Stalin’s gulags are where the left’s broken ideology ultimately leads.

Except that the left’s ideology rejects authoritarianism, which is fundamentally in conflict with Stalinism. The left’s ideology only ‘goes there’ when it is broken – and it is only broken when it relies on the intuitive ethics that the left rejects. What you claim is a flaw in leftist ideology is in fact the central flaw in an ethical system based on immoral precepts.

This is an aspect you’re going to need to study – by learning the actual history – to really understand the socially suicidal aspect of leftist, totalitarian ideologies like socialism, fascism, communism, corporatism, etc.

Socialism is not totalitarian. Democratic socialism is in fact one of the most successful political arrangements ever conceived. When you assert that corporatism is a leftist ideology, you have truly jumped the shark. Authoritarianism is the problem here – not the left’s morality. You’ve identified the common thread of totalitarianism, but you fail to connect this phenomenon to the root cause – a morality that accepts authority, in-group and purity as fundamental values.

In a nutshell, it’s this: moral adolescents will ALWAYS be exploited by corrupt actors who are more street-smart than they, and who know how to manipulate their incomplete moral framework to create a mob they can direct to achieve their own ends.

Replace “moral adolescents” with “Republicans”. That’s better.

- It is also fundamentally dishonest to deny the critical role that these three ‘intuitive ethics’ have played in the conflicts and violence that have marred the millennia of human history.

That may also be true but, again, I haven’t done that.

You continue to pretend that authoritarianism can thrive in the absence of the ethics of authority, in-group and purity – but it can’t. These are the three ethics that make possible all political oppression. And you claim they are the solution, rather than the problem. I agree that they need to be understood, but not for the sake of encouraging them – instead, it is important to understand them so that proper action can be taken to mitigate the damage done.

I am not pretending that conservatives reject harm and fairness – only that they rely on ethics that are not universal. There is common ground, but it cannot be located in terms of authority, in-group and purity. These are divisive and immoral intuitions.

One does not “transcend” the three intuitive ethics you find so distasteful by rejecting them. One neutralizes their negative aspects and amplifies their positive aspects by incorporating the additional two ethics into the framework. The same is absolutely true going the other way. That is the definition of moral maturity, and that is the only moral framework capable of producing social policies that lead to sustainable societies.

Your opinion on the nature of sustainable societies is welcome, but wrong. Your personal definition of moral maturity is merely a reflection of your own preconceived notions about what morality consists of. Meaningful moral maturity cannot rest on the foundation of arbitrary associations.

I’m making a dent. I can tell.

You may be making a dent – I expect some observers here have come to realize that your twisted concept of the moral mind you espouse is utterly without merit. Keep up the good work and I am certain we can reach a few more.

Peace.

DS