Favorite TED Talk: Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives

What I like about TED talks is that it is nearly impossible to find a bad one.

Pretty much every TED talk has some kind of new, meaningful insight to give to the viewer--happily delivered by one of the world's most brilliant minds.

But once in a while, there comes a TED talk that I just keep linking to everywhere I get into a conversation online.

For politics, the TED talk that I am speaking of is the one given by Jonathan Haidt in 2008.



He speaks of five moral values that affect our political choices:

1. Harm /Care
2. Fairness/Reciprocity
3. Ingroup/Loyalty
4. Authority/Respect
5. Purity/Sanctity

Why have I bolded the first two items? Because Mr. Haidt says that liberals--at their most extreme--only value the first two values. He says that liberals are far more likely to reject the ideas that purity, authority, and loyalty are a part of morality.

Surprisingly, I couldn't agree more. While authority, loyalty, and purity are certainly important--and will be key to bipartisan relations in American politics--they are far less important than caring and fairness in terms of morality.

Stupid, hateful people: The Anti Ground Zero Mosque Movement

(I try to be a good person, but I take no shame in titling this post with "Stupid, hateful people." I am simply calling out the hate, and hoping that the haters become good people eventually).


Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf wants to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

I see nothing wrong with this. There is nothing inherently bad about a mosque, is there?

But some people think there is, and they've created a website and started a movement.

Now, the movement claims not to be hateful, but the contradictions are obvious. On one page in their website, titled Responding to common objections, the hypocrisy is revealed.

Because I am not the first person to charge that this group is nothing but a manifestation of intolerance to Muslims, the administrator of the website made an attempt--a poor attempt--at appearing to be not hateful.

Part of their response was:

The notion that because "not all" Muslims are terrorists, and therefore we should all act as though we must always trust each other, unless proven otherwise, is unsafe.

Which is highlighted below in a cropped screenshot of their article. Click the image for the uncropped version.

Now, think about that statement for a second. Good human beings are supposed to trust Muslims, even though some may be terrorists. The idea behind that is known as being innocent until proven guilty. The idea is common in many Western democracies often targeted by Islamic extremists, yet presumption of innocence is nowhere to be found in the minds of the members of the Anti Ground Zero Mosque Movement.

And now let me conclude with this:
Islamic extremists get political support by showing America and other Western democracies to be the enemy of Islam. America and other Western democracies are now presented with a choice:

1. To be the enemy of Islam, for real.
2. To be the enemy of all flavors of terrorism, and an ally of peace.

Guess which choice is the right, moral one?

The perfect solution to the abortion debate

I'm a nice, friendly kind of person. I really don't like huge, shouting debates.

But, in America, the abortion debate is probably the largest and loudest debate that one can find.

It's a debate fraught with stereotypes, misconceptions, and propaganda.

And when I encounter shouting debates, I have a tendency to go hide somewhere in a corner.

And when I was hiding in a corner a few days ago, I thought up an idea which I think is probably the best--if not perfect--solution to abortion.

However, to agree with my idea, a person would have to have already agreed to the following beliefs:

1. Even if abortions are immoral, that will not stop some desperate women from going through with them illegally.
2. Illegal abortions are unsafe for the mother and child, and policies that reduce illegal abortions should be encouraged.
3.  There are some cases in which an abortion may be an ethical thing to do.
4. Discerning which abortions are ethical or not is something that should be done on a case-by-case basis. There is no dichotomous key to killing babies.
5. Only the pregnant woman has the right to make the decision about the baby.

If you agree to those, then you probably will like my awesome, and very general idea:

1. Set little preconditions on the specific type of abortions that will be allowed or disallowed.
2. The main exception to #1 is that all pregnant women must go through mandatory counseling before being able to go through with an abortion. The counseling will be quick; pregnant women are on a time schedule.
3. The counselor will help the woman explore solutions to the problem that she is facing (unable to take care of baby, baby has birth defects, etc.) that do not involve abortion.
4. At the end, the woman will make the decision of whether or not to get an abortion. Neither the counselor nor relatives of the woman will have any power beyond suggestion in regard to the abortion decision.

The benefits of my idea are:

1. The number of illegal abortions being performed will go down as there is a safer, legal alternative.
2. Data can be collected on the women seeking abortions. This cannot happen reliably when abortion is illegal.
3. Unnecessary abortions would be reduced.
4. Mothers that desperately need abortions would not be stopped.

The main issue with my plan, besides the fact that it is not nearly specific enough to be put into law without much modification, is the cost of the plan. Getting counseling for every woman that wants an abortion in the United States will not come cheaply.

However, I would like to see a Tea Partier challenge the idea of spending money to save as many babies from both legal and illegal abortions.