Tag: morality

A new way of thinking

Posted on by kathiemm

The political mind: Why you can’t understand 21st-century American politics with an 18th century brain, by George Lakoff

Book review by Kathie Malley-Morrison and Sarah Bleicher, student of linguistics and international studies at Boston College. (Sarah took Psychology of War and Peace with Kathie Malley-Morrison at Boston University this summer.)

Upon reading the introduction of George Lakoff’s The Political Mind, one may feel that brainwashing will ensue. Lakoff calls for a “New Enlightenment,” a new way of thinking, and for “changing minds.”

He explains how the brain shapes the political mind, how politics challenge the 21st century mind, and how old ways of thinking left over from the Enlightenment era are used—ineffectively—by neoliberals who think you can change people’s thinking by presenting them with facts.

In this book, Lakoff cites a number of  studies in support of his argument that human beings are emotional in ways that affect how they think about issues of values and morality. He argues that the combination of particular emotions with particular ideas can create synaptic bonds in the brain that in turn shape responses to those ideas and similar ideas.

According to Lakoff, human beings are not completely rational, and ideas with a strong emotional component (e.g., the extent to which wars are necessary and can be won) are influenced not just by information but by how they are framed, the language in which they are embedded, and the effects of that language on the brain.

This book provides a rich perspective on how cognitive science, politics, language, and experiences in the family and the broader society all work together in ways that can have a fundamental influence on political thought. Lakoff’s theories are mostly directed at helping progressives argue and debate more effectively in trying to counter the messages of conservatives; however, I think many of Lakoff’s ideas can be used to promote peace and a better world.

Specifically, I think we should consider the applications of his theories to peace building and peace education. Lakoff is quite convincing in his arguments concerning the tactics used by conservatives to influence political thinking; why shouldn’t peace educators use similar principles in framing the values of peace in a way that will energize people to work for peace?

Kathie Malley-Morrison and Sarah Bleicher

The immorality of torture

Posted on by kathiemm

[Note from Kathie Malley-Morrison: Today we are pleased to feature a book review by Carly Warren, who completed my course in Psychology of War and Peace this summer.]

Review of George Hunsinger’s Torture Is a Moral Issue: Christians, Jews, Muslims, and People of Conscience Speak Out

by C.J. Warren

In the aftermath of World War II, an international decree was established in an attempt to protect human rights. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the very same agencies that helped create and establish the international system for the protection of human rights began to reconsider it.

Torture is a Moral Issue book coverTorture, which is internationally forbidden under all circumstances, is now being openly presented and justified as a means to gain military intelligence. Consequently, the fundamental system that was established to protect all human rights has been weakened by its very own founders.

George Hunsinger’s edited collection, Torture Is a Moral Issue, sidesteps the question of whether torture is legally acceptable and instead asks if it is morally acceptable. This compilation of work, from almost two dozen active combatants and survivors of torture, turns to the basics of religion and morals to argue for an immediate end to the practice.

Hunsinger and contributors shift the focus of the torture debate from legalities and loopholes to moral values, thus taking it out of the shadows where governments have  justified its practice.

The book begins with background information that establishes the incidence and severity of torture, and importance of the debate. The dramatic firsthand accounts from a former U.S. military interrogator and torture survivor bring hard realism to the topic.

Muslim, Christian and Jewish arguments against torture form the bulk of the book. However, the religious theme is not overpowering, enabling both secular and religious individuals to understand and identify with its arguments.

This book has been described as hard-hitting because it refuses to let any justification for torture stand unchallenged. Its special value lies in the ethical and realistic advice on how to make changes and find solutions. Without knowledge and the will to understand, we cannot evolve or make strides towards eliminating this inhumane practice.

Morality and taxes

Posted on by kathiemm
"Tax Dollars" poster
Poster by Eric Gulliver, 2011

With April 15 (Tax Day in the U.S.) looming, I consider myself to have three moral obligations:

  • Pay taxes that can provide funding for many vital programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, public transportation, human services, education, environmental protections, and veterans’ benefits.
  • Protest tax policies that further entrench the rich and powerful while robbing the poor, depleting the middle class, and killing innocent people in the names of profit and national security.
  • Protest policies allowing huge corporations like General Electric to make billions of dollars in profits from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while paying NO federal taxes.

To find out where your tax payments go, check out the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL). According to their analysis, out of each dollar paid in federal income taxes in 2010, 39 cents went to fund current and past wars. This is probably an underestimate.

The federal budget deficit has been growing alarmingly since 2001, and it makes sense to look for ways to trim expenditures. But ask yourself, is it moral, is it just, and in the long run is it wise to cut the budgets for programs such as Social Security, job training, and Head Start, while keeping the Pentagon budget “off the table” and maintaining enormous tax breaks for the wealthy (e.g., through recent tax cuts on millionaires’ estates).

For a detailed breakdown of how social programs could be saved if some of the tax breaks for the rich were reduced, see the Center for American Progress.

In last year’s “weak economy,” hundreds of new billionaires emerged in this country while more and more people were losing their jobs and homes and falling below the poverty line. Is this what you want your taxes and current tax policies to support?

Finally, I have some suggestions:

To get some idea about what a cutback in military spending could accomplish, watch this video:

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology

Values and rhetoric: Lakovian framing, metaphors and stories

Posted on by kathiemm


George Lakoff, like Albert Bandura, analyzes the ways that people frame deadly behaviors to give them the trappings of morality. On August 26, 2010, our blog introduced Lakoff’s work; today we continue that exploration.

According to Lakoff, both liberals and conservatives use linguistic techniques, such as metaphors, storytelling, and framing, to justify political views.  For example, people often conceptualize nations as persons or even families, referring to their “founding fathers” or their “homeland,” or equating Iraq with Saddam Hussein. This nation-as-person metaphor presumes that there are :

  • “Adult nations” (those that are “mature” and industrialized)
  • “Nation-children,” which are industrializing and have moral standards but may need guidance, and
  • Backward nations, which are underdeveloped, in need of morals, and must be taught a lesson.

Many people justify invasions of other countries through what Lakoff labels the self-defense and rescue stories, each of which involves a blameless victim country, an inherently evil villain country, and a hero country:

  • In the self-defense story, the villain nation commits a crime against the victim nation, and the victim fights the villain off, thus becoming a hero.
  • In the rescue story, the villain threatens or attacks the victim, and the hero comes in and defeats the villain, thereby saving the victim.

Other people justify invading another country by using fear-instilling stock phrases such as “terrorist” or euphemisms designed to make inhumane actions seem sterile or even desirable—e.g., calling invasion a “military operation” as though it were something clean and sterile.

What other stories can you think of that people tell each other to justify aggression, including torture,  by their governments?

Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology (with thanks to Tristyn Campbell for contributing to this post)