Can’t We All Disagree More Constructively? Moral Foundations, Moral Reasoning, and Political Disagreement

Neuroethics 8 (2):153-169 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Can’t we all disagree more constructively? Recent years have seen a dramatic increase in political partisanship: the 2013 shutdown of the US government as well as an ever more divided political landscape in Europe illustrate that citizens and representatives of developed nations fundamentally disagree over virtually every significant issue of public policy, from immigration to health care, from the regulation of financial markets to climate change, from drug policies to medical procedures. The emerging field of political psychology brings the tools of moral psychology to bear on this issue. It suggests that the main conflict shaping politics today can be explained in terms of people’s moral foundations :1029–1046, 2009; Haidt 2012; Graham et al. PLOS One 7:1–13, ; cf. also Rai and Fiske Psychological Review 118:57–75, 2011): progressive liberals, it is argued, view society as consisting of separate individuals with differing values and life plans, whereas conservatives rely on a thicker notion of political morality that includes traditions, communities, and values of purity. In this paper, I explore the normative implications of this theory. In particular, I will argue that its proponents take it to support an asymmetry of understanding: if deep political disagreements reflect differences in people’s moral foundations, and these disagreements cannot be rationally resolved, then overcoming them makes it necessary to acknowledge the moral foundations of the other side’s political outlook. But conservatives, the theory suggests, already do acknowledge all of the liberal moral foundations, and not vice versa. To overcome partisanship and the resulting political deadlock, then, it seems to be up to liberals to move closer towards the conservative side, and not vice versa. I wish to analyze what the argument for this asymmetry is and whether it holds up. In the end, I shall argue that the available evidence does support an asymmetry, but that it is the opposite of what Moral Foundations theorists think it is. There is such an asymmetry - but its burden falls on the conservative side

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,423

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

On Explaining Political Disagreement.Andrew Mason - 1987 - Dissertation, University of Oxford (United Kingdom)
Disagreement and Legitimacy.Zoltan Miklosi & Andres Moles - 2014 - Res Publica 20 (1):1-8.
Epistemic Foundations of Political Liberalism.Fabienne Peter - 2013 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (5):598-620.
Why Deliberative Democracy is Different.Amy Gutmann & Dennis Thompson - 2000 - Social Philosophy and Policy 17 (1):161.
Liberalism, legal moralism and moral disagreement.Arthur Kuflik - 2005 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2):185–198.
Democracy and Disagreement.Alain Boyer - 1995 - Ratio Juris 8 (1):1-8.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-05-15

Downloads
109 (#159,221)

6 months
9 (#294,961)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Hanno Sauer
Utrecht University