One of the theorists to be considered in greater detail in later posts is George Lakoff.
We introduce several of his main ideas here because they are relevant to how readers are likely to respond to this blog; specifically, Lakoff has provided a brilliant analysis of moral reasoning in liberals and conservatives.
In his book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think, Lakoff argues that liberals and conservatives hold different values.
Specifically, liberals value:
- Empathetic behavior and promoting fairness
- Helping those who cannot help themselves
- Protecting those who cannot protect themselves
- Promoting fulfillment in life
- Nurturing and strengthening oneself in order to help others.
By contrast, conservatives value:
- A “strict father” morality (using punishment to establish respect for authority)
- Self-discipline, responsibility, and self-reliance
- The morality of reward and punishment
- Protecting moral people from external evils
- Upholding the established moral order.
Traditionally, liberals have been viewed as doves and conservatives as hawks; however, within both sectors there are pro-war and anti-war activists who differ primarily in their moral reasoning:
- Pro-war conservatives often refer to the evilness and moral inferiority of the identified “enemy” and view protestors against war as unpatriotic.
- Pro-war liberals are more likely to use the rhetoric of helping others.
In regard to this blog, it is the liberals who are more likely to be sympathetic to advocacy of peace activism. Would you agree? Why is this likely to be so?
Kathie Malley-Morrison, Professor of Psychology
