Humans can be inherently coercive.
This gets into deeper philosophical views. Is there ever a time when this definition of progressivism is the right thing to do?
Discussion
To learn more about the moral foundations of progressives and conservatives, I recommend Jonathan Haidtβs book The Righteous Mind. It discusses six moral foundations that people express in different amounts:
- Care/Harm
- Fairness/Cheating
- Authority/Subversion
- Sanctity/Degradation
- Loyalty/Betrayal
- Liberty/Oppression
Progressive (βLiberalβ in the U.S.) morality is dominated by Care/Harm, with a little Fairness/Cheating. Conservative morality is a blend of all.
Of note, Libertarian morality is almost entirely Liberty/Oppression. Haidt explored this in later works, after the initial 5.
None of the above is provably right or wrong. The foundations are like tastebuds and different people have different preferences.
Haidt has also done a number of talks on this subject, which are great introductions. Available on YouTube.
/1280px-Haidt-political_morality.png
Thanks for sharing. These "tastebuds" are valuable as a whole, but there are times when a few need to be prioritized.
To that point, you may be interested in Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values as there seems to be a lot of empirical support, is designed to account for cultural and environmental influences, and can shift in response to changing life circumstances.
Haidt's theory focuses on innate moral foundations, which do not easily adapt to changes and may not account for cultural and contextual differences.
While I believe we are foundationally "programmed," in a sense, we have the ability to change who we are and our perspective. To change, perhaps a philosophical approach, like virtue ethics, is best suited to guide us to be deprogrammed or to live a life worth living.
ππ«π§‘
