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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 02 2016, @10:53PM
And you might want to read your Bible a bit more carefully. Moses said it around a thousand years before Confucius. Indeed, if you read the Gospels carefully you will note that Moses is being referenced explicitly (Matthew 22:34-40; Mark 12:28-34). Another recounting of the story has the Greatest Commandments being recited by "an expert in the Law" when Jesus turns the question back around on him ("How do you read it?") (Luke 10:25-28). Before you deign to educate "feebs" it would be good for you to get an adequate grasp of the material yourself.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 03 2016, @12:35AM
Moses said it around a thousand years before Confucius.
Unless, of course, he didn't. There is a certain problem with relying on the Bible as a historical reference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 03 2016, @02:58AM
Question: why are you willing to accept accounts of Confucius as "historical" but not Moses? What is your basis for accepting one but not the other? I am genuinely curious!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday June 03 2016, @05:04AM
Question: why are you willing to accept accounts of Confucius as "historical" but not Moses? What is your basis for accepting one but not the other? I am genuinely curious!
Confucius was better documented and emulated by a lot more people in his time. The story of Moses has evolved over many more centuries than the tales of Confucius. I doubt it has much resemblance to the original events. For example, most of the Old Testament, including the Book of Leviticus, is heavily tainted by propaganda during the Babylon exile period (which let us note, is at or before the birth of Confucius, so the golden rule as expressed in the Bible probably would still predate Confucius) and after.
Now, maybe Moses did state the golden rule, but it's hard to square that with the stories of merciless Hebrew invaders in the decades after his death.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 03 2016, @03:18AM
Nice try, but if this is actually the case, Christians look WORSE that I portrayed them, as this is one of their usual arguments for Jesus being different from all those other religions' founders. That sound is the sound of 2.2 billion own goals at once. Nice job!
Besides which, Moses...is not the example you want to use. Nor is his demonic God, Yahweh. If YOU would read YOUR Bible a bit more, you'd notice Yahweh has much to say about not eating shellfish or mixing fabric, but has no problem with slavery. You are really, REALLY not in a position to be trying this argument.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...