SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I'm-morally-opposed-to-statements-about-morality dept.
Simply telling people that their opinions are based on morality will make them stronger and more resistant to counterarguments, a new study suggests.
Researchers found that people were more likely to act on an opinion - what psychologists call an attitude - if it was labeled as moral and were more resistant to attempts to change their mind on that subject.
The results show why appeals to morality by politicians and advocacy groups can be so effective, said Andrew Luttrell, lead author of the study and a doctoral student in psychology at The Ohio State University.
"The perception that an attitude we hold is based on morality is enough to strengthen it," Luttrell said.
"For many people, morality implies a universality, an ultimate truth. It is a conviction that is not easily changed."
The key finding was how easy it was to strengthen people's beliefs by using the 'moral' label, said Richard Petty, co-author of the study and professor of psychology at Ohio State.
"Morality can act as a trigger - you can attach the label to nearly any belief and instantly make that belief stronger," Petty said.
Always preface your comments with, "The Lord sayeth..."
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 02 2016, @01:36PM
Absolutely. There are in fact quite a few common moral statements that are pretty much universal in human society, and no wonder because those are useful evolutionary adaptations. Here are some of the basic rules:
- Don't kill anybody in your own society. (There's no equivalent rule for those jerks from other societies, though.)
- Take care of children, at least once you know they won't be dead within their first year of life.
- Take care of yourself if you are capable of doing so.
- Be basically honest with those in your own society. (Again, tricking those jerks from other societies may be OK.)
- Respect the elderly, even if you don't heed their advice.
- Don't bang your relatives. (Who exactly qualifies as a relative varies a bit, but immediate family is obviously out.)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @03:54PM
- Don't bang your relatives.
I don't see a moral issue with incest if the relationship is consensual. Having children is not a given. Even if the couple wants to have children, the chance of genetic defects is not absolute or even that high in most cases. Even if the child would have genetic defects, they were simply born that way, and they know no other way of living. It's also not necessarily true that a resulting child will have severe enough genetic defects and taxpayers will somehow shoulder some of the burden. We don't forbid couples who would likely (even in cases where it's more likely than incest) produce children with genetic defects from breeding in other cases, yet incest is treated as an especially horrific case. It really just seems like a knee-jerk reaction to me.
This is really a case of people needing to mind their own business, even if they think it's 'icky'.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 02 2016, @04:44PM
These moral rules are ones that tend to be enforced by human societies, whether or not they're actually justified. And in the case of incest, that's a pretty universal no-no, with the only real exception being very specific royal bloodlines where the siblings were kept apart from each other growing up so as to not imprint "this person is a relative" on their psyche the way almost everyone does with their actual siblings (this effect is social, not genetic - step-siblings raised together experience the same kind of revulsion).
Also, parent-child and uncle/aunt-niece/nephew incest is never considered consensual because of the power the adult has over the child. Much of sibling incest isn't either, because of the great power differences between the partners. For example, a 17-year-old is in a very different place physically and mentally than a 13-year-old.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @05:32PM
Also, parent-child and uncle/aunt-niece/nephew incest is never considered consensual because of the power the adult has over the child. Much of sibling incest isn't either, because of the great power differences between the partners. For example, a 17-year-old is in a very different place physically and mentally than a 13-year-old.
That's fallacious reasoning. Just because the adult has power over the child doesn't mean they're actually using it. To say that it is never consensual is just an absurd legal fiction at best. Furthermore, why bring incestuous relationships that involve children into it? You're already starting from a very strange place, and the fact that it's incest is entirely incidental; the subject could be about gay relationships, heterosexual relationships, or anything really. It's possible for a 20 year old to get into an incestuous relationship with their parent; they don't need to do so when they are children. Incest is far more broad than relationships with children, so they can't be treated as the same thing. With that said, I'd be extremely hesitant to trust any social science studies, given the lack of scientific rigor in those fields and the extreme societal bias against incest.
I also don't like this thinking that because someone's brain isn't fully developed, they can't comprehend the consequences of their actions. While this might be true more frequently than if they were older, that doesn't mean it's impossible for them to understand the consequences of their actions, and really, adults are hardly better at this. People drink alcohol and make decisions, make decisions when they are sleepy, make spur-of-the-moment decisions, etc. Really, people in general are bad at long-term thinking. Let people make mistakes and learn from them.
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Friday June 03 2016, @03:03AM
...unless they deserve it.
...unless they are exploitable, an economic or societal drain, inconvenient, or someone else's.
...unless someone of higher status compels you to do otherwise, or unless you can compel someone of lower status to do it for you.
...unless they are of a lower status to you; or unless it is an obligation, economically or societally advantageous, convenient or undetectable.
...unless they are exploitable, an economic or societal drain, inconvenient, or someone else's.
...unless it is an obligation; economically or societally advantageous, convenient or undetectable.
----------
FTFUniversality--references available upon request--or, unfortunately, unnecessary with a fair knowledge of world history and society in general :(