Charles M. Schulz once famously said, “There are three things I have learned never to discuss with people. Religion, politics, and the great Pumpkin” (Goodreads). These issues cut to the core of the individual’s most sacred values and, therefore, don’t lend themselves to polite conversation, let alone compromise. Therefore, most people avoid the topics or engage in rhetorical battle. Fox news reported about police suspending an “alleged” fraternity gang rape charge and now there is a division between people on should this have happened or why did this happen. It was reported across national news, Donald Trump saying, “I will build the best wall, the biggest, the strongest, not penetrable, they won’t be crawling over it, like giving it
…show more content…
Hunter’s theory suggests either you are traditionalist or a progressivist based on competing sources of morality, while Jonathan Haidt believes that differences in morality depend on the activation of the five innate psychological systems (foundations) within people. Although both are focused on the differences in morality, Hunter believes morality stems from an individual’s conception of truth which is transcendent to religion but Haidt would argue that internal genes/personalities lead to the pathway of morality. Whereas James Hunter, Jonathan Haidt, and moral foundation theory are different in transcendence; they are both similar on morality and the issues of culture wars. …show more content…
Haidt’s theory seems to be one that could be proven more since it is backed by science and has the potential to exacerbate the culture wars by giving opposing sides a “blueprint” for targeting certain audiences with emphases on certain moral “triggers”. Ending the culture war would be a miracle because we would have to get everyone on the same page and have similar thoughts. Haidt said “Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say” (Righteous Mind 312). Haidt is saying that we are a nation of good people standing together, but we are fighting one another and not listening. If we stopped and listen instead of insisting our side was right and be more open to the other side; maybe the cold war would be over and it would be like Haidt suggest which is being introduced to “new” and “open” to
Hunter’s theory suggests either you are traditionalist or a progressivist based on competing sources of morality, while Jonathan Haidt believes that differences in morality depend on the activation of the five innate psychological systems (foundations) within people. Although both are focused on the differences in morality, Hunter believes morality stems from an individual’s conception of truth which is transcendent to religion but Haidt would argue that internal genes/personalities lead to the pathway of morality. Whereas James Hunter, Jonathan Haidt, and moral foundation theory are different in transcendence; they are both similar on morality and the issues of culture wars. …show more content…
Haidt’s theory seems to be one that could be proven more since it is backed by science and has the potential to exacerbate the culture wars by giving opposing sides a “blueprint” for targeting certain audiences with emphases on certain moral “triggers”. Ending the culture war would be a miracle because we would have to get everyone on the same page and have similar thoughts. Haidt said “Morality binds and blinds. It binds us into ideological teams that fight each other as though the fate of the world depended on our side winning each battle. It blinds us to the fact that each team is composed of good people who have something important to say” (Righteous Mind 312). Haidt is saying that we are a nation of good people standing together, but we are fighting one another and not listening. If we stopped and listen instead of insisting our side was right and be more open to the other side; maybe the cold war would be over and it would be like Haidt suggest which is being introduced to “new” and “open” to