The Association Between Moral Foundation and Political Orientation in Australia: Do the American Studies Carry over to an Australian Population?

Summary: In chapter 1 of Moral Politics talks about that politics is about your own world view. The political division between republican and democrat is based on morality. Morality is based on the type of family backgrounds you have or family model you have such as strict father and nurturing father. And these models explain what “common sense” you have in mind, which you may not even aware of. Chapter two talks about the personal worldview problem for american politics, it will bring the questions that either you're more conservative or liberal. Both sides have their own views. It talks about why do conservatives think that morality should be their agenda. Liberals also have a paradoxical position even they also hold a moral position on

We believe that Gilligan’s distinction between a morality of care and a morality of justice is a distinction held in the minds of all human beings… However, these two senses of the word moral do not represent two different moral orientations existing at the same level of generality and validity. We see justice as both rational and implying an attitude of empathy. It is for this reason that we make the following proposal: i.e. that there is a dimension along which various moral dilemmas and orientations can be placed. Personal moral dilemmas and orientations of specials obligation, as we have just discussed them, represent one end of this dimension and the standard hypothetical justice dilemmas and justice orientation represent the other end (Kohlberg, Levine, and Hewer,

Morality is a person’s natural distinction between right and wrong and dependent on “doing the right thing for the right reason” (Justice, 111). We can not effectively pass laws that apply equally to each individual if they have a different perspective of right versus wrong.

In The Moral Instinct, Steven Pinker cites Haidt’s “primary colors” of the moral sense (329). Pinker believes that all moral decisions can be categorized with these primary colors and, though everyone can see these colors, they are prioritized differently by different people. Haidt identifies five primaries—harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity—all of which make up the moral spectrum. These recurring moral themes can be found everywhere from cultural norms to the decisions and beliefs of individuals. Though the themes can be identified in works regarding ethics and morality, they—if applied correctly—can also give insight into the way the author prioritizes the moral colors.

While taking the course Contemporary Public Issues, I have gained a vast amount of knowledge on the subject of political ideologies and have seen the different ideologies explained, criticized, and commended from several diverse viewpoints as I participated in the class discussions and read the selected course readings. These readings and class discussions have greatly influenced my ideological preferences. After evaluating the assigned course readings and reflecting on the class discussions that were held, I have come to the conclusion that I possess both liberal and conservative ideological preferences including: government action should take place to ensure equal opportunity, change should happen slowly over time, and religion should be a private issue. Although I possess both liberal and conservative ideological preferences, I feel that I lean more towards liberal tendencies when it comes to

I was surprised when I saw my results of the political stance test and I have three reasons why. The first reason is that my stance was different from the majority of young adults. According to a research done by newspaper agency "The Tech", most people around my age are located on the left wing and believe that society should be administered in a libertarian way. This is because young adults do not want to be suppressed, so they dislike authorities and want to create new cultures/beliefs rather than inheriting them, so they are placed on the left wing. As I grew up in a similar environment as these people, I assumed I would have similar beliefs, but my graph differed. This showed that similar environments, do not always make people have similar beliefs. The second reason is that I was located on the right wing. The right side has strong

The link between morality and human nature has been a progressive reoccurring theme since ancient times (Prinz, 2008). Moral development is a characteristic of a person’s general development that transpires over the course of a lifetime. Moral development is derived by a wide variety of cultural and demographic factors that appear to influence morally relevant actions. Turiel (2006) defined morality as an individuals “prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other.” Individuals’ moral judgments are frequently considered to be a product of culturally specific controls that provide a framework for behavioral motivations that are sensitive to the effects of gender, education, religion and politics (Banerjee, Huebner & Hauser, 2010). While several approaches have been utilized to examine the interaction of multivariate contributors to fundamental moral differences such as: disputes about family life, sexuality, social fairness, and so on, research has suggested that ideological considerations have provided a potent and diverse explanation for the polarization of contrasting views (Weber & Federico, 2013).

In Who Really Cares?, Arthur C. Brooks made an intriguing case regarding the debate between which group of the general public, liberals or conservatives, gives more to charity. The author notes that he sees in society, that there is a popular belief that people whose ideologies fall under the ideas of liberalism give more than their conservative counterparts.

This study examined symmetry in ideological conflict among liberals and conservatives in outgroup tolerance by asking participants to respond to a series of questions. Firstly, all participants reported their attitudes on a Likert Scale and were categorised as liberal or conservative on both social and economic issues. They were instructed to read descriptions of a community and asked to evaluate the political orientation as well as their personal degree of political intolerance towards the group. From the results, it can be concluded that liberals and conservatives are equally intolerant of outgroups as consistent with the ideological conflict hypothesis to similar degrees on social issues. Whereas, conservatives still express strong intolerance

In a study structured to measure political attitude, Michelle collected data from 40 college students. The sample population was asked to rate statements about typical campaign practices on a 5 point Likert scale (att1 = disagree to att5= agree). An additional variable of political affiliation was added to establish a correlation between attitude and political party (politics with 1 = Republican and 2 = Democrat).

“There has to be some common ground.” I caught the tail end of this sentence during a morning radio news story while commuting to work. Although the story was about the recent polarizing presidential election, the phrase stuck with me throughout the day. As I continue to critically reflect on my ethical framework for this paper, I will write about my core values in relation to Thomas G. Plante’s RRICC principles of responsibility, respect, and concern for others from his book “Do the Right Thing,” as well as other underlying morals and how they guide my actions.

In terms of the trend of people forming into distinct, and often bitterly opposed, political groups, psychologists have argued that the typical liberal/conservative divide is based on two factors. Firstly, on differences in how individuals, generally speaking, construct their moral frameworks. And secondly, on personality differences between the individual members of the different groups, which may underlie the distinctness between liberal and conservative moral frameworks. Specifically, it is argued that those in the liberal camp construct their moral frameworks focusing on the psychological foundations of harm/care and fairness/reciprocity. Whereas, the moral frameworks of those in the conservative camp are founded on five psychological

Researchers view conservatism as a form of motivated reasoning. That is, a person’s psychological tendencies, rather than their objective assessment of public policy, is what drives conservatism. Following this argument, we might expect that conservatives would be less objective in their discussion of politics than liberals. While this hypothesis is plausible, there are other possibilities to consider. A growing body of research, coined the ideological symmetry hypothesis, indicates that motivated reasoning may inform both conservatism and liberalism. In other words, conservatives may be just as objective as liberals while reaching different conclusions. What we have are two competing hypotheses. On one hand, we have research indicating that

Western liberal and deeply individualistic societies have defined morality in a very narrow sense. By just considering harm, western liberals miss out on the wider variety of moral flavours available in other societies. In more traditional societies, where a greater emphasis is placed on the value of community, morality is not as narrowly defined. Countries that prioritize the group, above the individual, take a more sociocentric approach to morality which brings in the wider array of moral bases. Other than care/harm, Haidt distinguished between four more bases for morality, fair/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Unlike in western liberals, conservatives and those in more sociocentric societies taste all of these flavours of morality when making moral judgments. Liberals, according to Haidt, are able to understand fair/cheating and

The public’s perspectives on political issues may change as various circumstances happen every day. Nature around us influences the choices that we deliver and the perspectives that we as American nationals hold. In order to obtain those views and concluded on decisions is based on the values that we embrace. These values are originated from our upbringing, friends, family, and our life experiences that we, as individuals, face. Our principles then determine what we deem important or non-important and in a political sense can even tell us what party we identify ourselves.