tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post4120503282153742251..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Haidt's Moral Psychology of Humean ConservatismLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-28697684876640812462013-05-14T14:20:01.819+01:002013-05-14T14:20:01.819+01:00Is there any evidence that society in general was ...Is there any evidence that society in general was more moral and better behaved before 1859 (when the Origin of Species was published) than afterward? In the absence of such evidence, there is no basis for maintaining that the wide acceptance of Darwinian evolution has any effect at all on human behavior.<br />------------------------------------<br />Dr. Mike abrams - <strong><a href="http://psychny.com/" rel="nofollow">Psychologist NYC</a></strong> | Watch his <strong><a href="http://www.psychny.com//videos.htm" rel="nofollow">Psychology Videos</a></strong> at About.comAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08828808018951420623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-6457884909773361712012-10-17T03:19:03.385+01:002012-10-17T03:19:03.385+01:00Larry:
I like the way you define Darwinian conser...Larry: <br />I like the way you define Darwinian conservatism in the header of this blog: <br /><br />“a Darwinian science of human nature supports traditionalist conservatives and classical liberals in their realist view of human imperfectibility, and in their commitment to ordered liberty as rooted in natural desires, cultural traditions, and prudential judgments.”<br /><br />In this blog post you have shown that I meet this definition. My views about the best way to run a good society do indeed make me a Darwinian conservative. If that term ends up making me a “liberal conservative” or something like that, I’d accept the label. I just can’t accept either the label “conservative” or “Republican” in this day and age. <br />Jon Haidthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02251797057285084956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-14631776644917773982012-09-22T16:11:34.491+01:002012-09-22T16:11:34.491+01:00It was Nixon, not Reagan, but I take your point.
...It was Nixon, not Reagan, but I take your point.<br /><br />You are no doubt correct that Haidt was never exposed to any thought outside the bounds of orthodox left liberalism in his education or his professional academic life.<br /><br />That makes his work all the more impressive. He had to act with real courage over an extended period. This is a rare thing, especially in the academy. One can wish he would move faster, but any genuine openness to argument from someone in his environment is extraordinary and praisworthy. Rather like Pauline Kael deciding Nixon's the one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-70731169922046934022012-09-21T14:54:24.611+01:002012-09-21T14:54:24.611+01:00How can anyone, except those bombarded their whole...How can anyone, except those bombarded their whole lives by the liberal echo chamber, believe that conservatism = orthodoxy = religion = faith = rejection of science? He must have never listened to anyone or spoken to anyone outside his circle. Embodiment of the famous quip by Pauline Kael, how could Reagan have won? No one I know voted for him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com