That's why I thought it was a weak argument, once I got to the bottom of it. Wah-men, I tell you....
Discussion
GM brothers š§
But isnāt she right to insist on a higher standard for morals?
The theory sounds pretty democratic to me, just because leftist āliberalsā believe itās āfairā to take taxes and use force to steal and redistribute money- doesnāt mean it is a moral good to do so.
The elephant and rider can go and crush our houses if allowed to!
It wasn't that she was insisting on a higher moral standard. Her points was that social sciences are a 'soft" science and aren't fully concrete.
I don't think the theory is about what should be, but more about what is.
Whether liberals believe taxation is fair or not, while it may not be moral from a libertarian perspective, Moral Foundation theory simply observes that framework. It doesn't prescribe it as good or bad.
I think it would be more a political (objective) theory then? Maybe thatās what she meant by āsoft scienceā
Morality is objective (Platoās moral realism, Natural Law) imo š¤