Social media through the lense of Moral Philosophy

Hi Craig!
Love this!
Going to digest...

I'm not sure I understand the insight-- is it that the work is much harder than we might presume, because success involves intervening in people's intuitive moral assessments, rather than on a logical level?

I'm a bit stuck between whether I should try and help make peace, or help win the war. 

Also: nice :). The question is whether these are ultimately any different. I guess it depends on what one's definition of 'winning' is. What does that look like for you?

I don't know if I can drop this link here, it is not very intellectual, but I just saw my friends sharing it - maybe it is a good sign that this topic becomes mainstream. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/16/facebook-bias-bubble-us-election-conservative-liberal-news-feed

I bought the Jonathan Haidt book, I am really curious about it, thx Craig

Are you familiar with the strategy of organizing in circles @craigambrose? If you think of yourself as a point at the center, and a circle of people who think very like you surrounds you/the point, and a circle of people who think very like them, but a little less like you surrounds that, etc. til you get to a ring of folks who think very differently than you, the "winning strategy" for grassroots organizing is typically to focus on this circle just outside of yourself, and ripple outwards from there.

One thing y'all might find interesting in this and other convos, is the Moral Foundations Theory which depicts 6 axes upon which people's morality may be mapped. I learned about it in a class on Organizing for Social Change, and I've returned to it now and again especially when writing persuasive appeals and thinking about messaging strategy.

ps the same prof. who intro'd me to the above also showed us these nifty political-psychological-research sites, the PoliticalCompass containing one test and the YourMorals containing many tests, including the one that shows where one stands in terms of the axes of non-violence, fairness, loyalty, liberty, sanctity

The moral foundations theory you mention @coopchange is from Jonathan Haidt above. That's very much what I'm thinking about, yes.

I've believed in the grass-roots strategy of those circles that you described for a long time. Frankly, I'm starting to doubt it. The fact that the left has been relying on it for so long isn't a particularly good testimonial. :)

Ha well I can't say I could be put on a platform with the "left", but partly b.c. I more often claim "non-platformist" in last few years. The biggest victories I've experienced have included a lot of both (namely WI Uprising), but even in that 200,000 person struggle my experience began by seeking those w/ some basic shared norms & values.

I look—especially now— to that 17-day occupation because it both showcased divergent mvmts cross-pollinating and building bridges across divides as well as showing how the more powerful alliance of actors within the general mvmt, specifically big labor & Dem. Party, authoritatively led people out of the space that had been co-created in the statehouse.

TL;DR: diversity of tactics is critical, and I think it's useful to be mindful of the utility of affinity groups, while also doing bold acts of creative place-making that enable wider swaths of the multitudes to cross paths and find common ground.

For me the subject of morals is foundational and I am grateful that you brought it up.

I think that without a good moral framework it is almost impossible for us to explore ideas with subtlety and depth. Because any subject that is truly interesting usually leads to a "peeling" process where superficial layers are peeled away to see deeper concepts and assumptions. A few iterations of this, when done sincerely, should lead to an almost metaphysical introspection. Questions like what am I, what is real, what is the world should come to the surface. I think we (westerners?) lack solid metaphysical foundations which may explain our difficulty in manifesting good intellectual solutions and why the ground beneath feels so shifty.

In this context I, for the last 15+ years, have been gravitating back to the work of Robert Pirsig (because I haven't encountered something better). His well known work is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in which he explores "Quality". His lesser known (and in my opinion more important work) is the sequel Lila - An Inquiry into Morals in which he describes us as beings in which there are numerous moral tiers / dimensions (inorganic, biologic, social, inetllectual) struggling to co-exist. The relationship between them is fascinating and makes us who we are. A section of my site is dedicated to Lila.

In relation to your question @craigambrose I would offer this very practical quote from Pirsig:
"If you don’t like our present social system or intellectual system the best thing you can do … is stay out of their way."

The way I have embraced this idea is to, as much as possible, avoid responding to the existing systems (which is why I am critical of activists), and focus on creating alternatives.

@craigambrose This is an excellent point you bring up. I think it is to a large degree true, but that doesn't mean that it is a hopeless exercise in trying to bridge understanding. In particular, in regards to my debate idea, I started from the perspective that for any debate, there was one true answer, and everyone would collectively arrive a that conclusion. But I soon realized that you can at best arrive at an agreement on "facts" and trade offs in values (e.g. is personal freedom more important than security?). So I think that by meeting in the middle in debate, the best we can hope for is to gain a mutual understanding of how we weight our values differently.

That being said, I think we will end up arguing, but at least we will be arguing about the right things, in a civil and informed manner. This would change the face of politics entirely. The latest election would not have been possible under those circumstances.