Study On Liberals and Ethics

[Correll]

If it's so easy to show how Liberals are wrong about everything,

why would you RWnuts have to resort to something this nonsensical?

If it's so easy to show how Liberals are wrong about everything,

why would you RWnuts have to resort to something this nonsensical?

THere is nothing nonsensical about measuring differences in behavior between different groups.

I am also unaware that Cornell University is a RWnut University.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If it's so easy to show how Liberals are wrong about everything,

why would you RWnuts have to resort to something this nonsensical?

If it's so easy to show how Liberals are wrong about everything,

why would you RWnuts have to resort to something this nonsensical?

THere is nothing nonsensical about measuring differences in behavior between different groups.

I am also unaware that Cornell University is a RWnut University.

The hypothetical is so absurd that no rational conclusions can be drawn from it based on how people respond.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[QUOTE="NYcarbineer, post: 11362537, member: 18701"]The importance of what?

just what i thought, you are too stupid to understand the OP.., did you read it ? do you need help ? if so contact any Conservative first grader, i am certain any one of them can explain it to you.

It would be murder to throw an innocent person in front a trolley, not matter what the rationale. So the only correct answer is no, I wouldn't throw anyone.

The individual answers to this question varies obviously.

This thread is about the differences between liberals and conservatives revealed by looked at their answers as a group.


It appears that race matters to liberals more than to conservatives.

It also appears that national loyalty does not.

Show us in the study what the amount of variation was between the liberals and conservatives.

Oh, and btw, they based the liberal/conservative measurements by self-identification, which is an inaccurate measure.

So none of you really know what the study found?

lol. What a shock.[/QUOTE]

So none of you know the actual numbers? So all of your pontifications are based on ignorance. Another shock.

 

[Clementine]

Note that the unethical OP failed to include the following study demonstrating the lack of conservative ethics.

Study 3 found conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect.​

Google "collateral damage"...it's part of war. Your argument is invalid

Liberals were less likely to endorse the unnecessary slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians in the unnecessary invasion of Iraq.

Case closed.

States "Unintended", which is usually unavoidable. The radicals deliberately put women and children in harm's way as they use them for shields.

 

[Agit8r]

if the dude is big enough to stop a trolley, you aren't going to be able to move him. Just basic physics.

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[Correll]

If it's so easy to show how Liberals are wrong about everything,

why would you RWnuts have to resort to something this nonsensical?

If it's so easy to show how Liberals are wrong about everything,

why would you RWnuts have to resort to something this nonsensical?

THere is nothing nonsensical about measuring differences in behavior between different groups.

I am also unaware that Cornell University is a RWnut University.

The hypothetical is so absurd that no rational conclusions can be drawn from it based on how people respond.

The idea of actively sacrificing one to save many, is a valid moral question. The fact that the hypothetical is unrealistic does not detract from that.

The question, the responses, the analysis of the different reactions of the two groups, this is how psych studies are done.

Your denial of information that you fine uncomfortable is understandable.

 

[danielpalos]

The left is willing to question appeals to ignorance of our supreme laws of the land regardless of Religious ideology; unlike the Right.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The radicals deliberately put women and children in harm's way as they use them for shields.

Like the rightwing militia did on Clive Bundy's farm when they were hiding behind women while violating the law of the land?

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Why do liberals have no ethics?

 

[LeftofLeft]

So, Liberals are a study.

-Geaux
------------------

The trolley problem is that staple of moral psychology studies at dinner parties in which you ask someone to decide under what conditions it’s morally permissible to kill one person to save others.

Participants received one of two scenarios involving an individual who has to decide whether or not to throw a large man in the path of a trolley (described as large enough that he would stop the progress of the trolley) in order to prevent the trolley from killing 100 innocent individuals trapped in a bus.

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

While we did not provide specific information about the race of the individuals in the scenario, we reasoned that Chip and Tyrone were stereotypically associated with White American and Black American individuals respectively, and that the New York Philharmonic would be assumed to be majority White, and the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed to be majority Black.

Specifically, liberals were more likely to endorse a consequentialist justification when the victim had a stereotypically White name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black name. More conservative
participants (1 SD above the mean) did not give reliably different endorsements of consequentialism across scenario versions.

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf[URL='http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf[/QUOTE'][/QUOTE[/URL]]


The only ethic Liberals have is to hold everyone else accountable to their own ethics and standards. Otherwise, ethics, standards, accountability, do not exist among liberals.

 

[kaz]

I agree. However, it is indeed refreshing to see it in print. Really drives home the importance.

-Geaux

The importance of what?

Here's how you get there. Pretend the study showed Republicans were more likely to sacrifice the black guy.

1) Feel the rage

2) Now replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and "black" with "white"

Get it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I agree. However, it is indeed refreshing to see it in print. Really drives home the importance.

-Geaux

The importance of what?

Here's how you get there. Pretend the study showed Republicans were more likely to sacrifice the black guy.

1) Feel the rage

2) Now replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and "black" with "white"

Get it?

And you don't get how outrageously absurd the scenario is?

lol

 

[kaz]

I agree. However, it is indeed refreshing to see it in print. Really drives home the importance.

-Geaux

The importance of what?

Here's how you get there. Pretend the study showed Republicans were more likely to sacrifice the black guy.

1) Feel the rage

2) Now replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and "black" with "white"

Get it?

And you don't get how outrageously absurd the scenario is?

lol

That's the point

 

[Care4all]

Conservatives probably thought Chip Ellsworth III was the name of some elitist liberal academic.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!



that was a good one, thanks for the laugh!

 

[francoHFW]

The problem is rich people making out like crazy, the nonrich and the poor getting screwed. see sig. All this is Pub distraction and divisive bs to hide their pandering to their greedy idiot billionaire and corporate masters, hater dupes.

 

[Billy000]

So, Liberals are a study.

-Geaux
------------------

The trolley problem is that staple of moral psychology studies at dinner parties in which you ask someone to decide under what conditions it’s morally permissible to kill one person to save others.

Participants received one of two scenarios involving an individual who has to decide whether or not to throw a large man in the path of a trolley (described as large enough that he would stop the progress of the trolley) in order to prevent the trolley from killing 100 innocent individuals trapped in a bus.

Half of the participants received a version of the scenario where the agent could choose to sacrifice an individual named “Tyrone Payton” to save 100 members of the New York Philharmonic, and the other half received a version where the agent could choose to sacrifice “Chip Ellsworth III” to save 100 members of the Harlem Jazz Orchestra. In both scenarios the individual decides to throw the person onto the trolley tracks.

While we did not provide specific information about the race of the individuals in the scenario, we reasoned that Chip and Tyrone were stereotypically associated with White American and Black American individuals respectively, and that the New York Philharmonic would be assumed to be majority White, and the Harlem Jazz Orchestra would be assumed to be majority Black.

Specifically, liberals were more likely to endorse a consequentialist justification when the victim had a stereotypically White name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black name. More conservative
participants (1 SD above the mean) did not give reliably different endorsements of consequentialism across scenario versions.

http://journal.sjdm.org/9616/jdm9616.pdf

Lol how typical of you to leave information out. It says right in the abstract that in study 3 conservatives were more likely to sacrifice the entire group of innocents if they were of Iraqi origin.

Thread over.

 

[Billy000]

Note that the unethical OP failed to include the following study demonstrating the lack of conservative ethics.

Study 3 found conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect.​

Google "collateral damage"...it's part of war. Your argument is invalid

This response is so stupid. Here you are presented with evidence that conservatives would sacrifice innocent civilians if they were Iraqi and you justify it with something as stupid and irrelavant as "it's part of war". What the fuck does war have to do with this let alone collateral damage?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I agree. However, it is indeed refreshing to see it in print. Really drives home the importance.

-Geaux

The importance of what?

Here's how you get there. Pretend the study showed Republicans were more likely to sacrifice the black guy.

1) Feel the rage

2) Now replace "Republican" with "Democrat" and "black" with "white"

Get it?

And you don't get how outrageously absurd the scenario is?

lol

That's the point

Then go chew on the OP's ankle for a change.

 

[NYcarbineer]

In this hypothetical I voted for having Superman fly in, spin the Earth backwards to go back in time to allow the trainman on the trolley tracks time to throw the proper switch to send the trolley down the proper track.

See how much easier life is if you use your head?