ARE CONSERVATIVES MORE ETHICAL THAN LIBERALS?
In a speical commentary to the Examiner, Peter Schweizer argues that "there is a striking gap between the manner in which liberals and conservatives address the issue of honesty", citing numerous survey research studies on ethics. He sums up his argument with the nugget that liberals are intellectually defective:
"The honesty gap is also not a result of “bad people” becoming liberals and “good people” becoming conservatives. In my mind, a more likely explanation is bad ideas. Modern liberalism is infused with idea that truth is relative. Surveys consistently show this. And if truth is relative, it also must follow that honesty is subjective."
Schweizer dismisses the argument that conservative respondents were dishonest in their answers, despite the fact that any social scientist engaged in survey research knows and understands "social acceptability bias", whereby a respondent is systematically evasive about their true feelings on a subject for fear of being viewed unfavorably by the researcher. As confessed conservatives, one would think they have alot to loose if they answered truthfully to questions of dishonesty and criminality.
Liberals and Conservatives are all human, and I do not believe that, in practice, any one group has a lock on ethics and morals. Conservatives talk a better game. However, given some of the evidence from our political and corporate leadership, I would argue that we all suffer from ethical lapses from time to time.
2 comments:
Very interesting post, in fact, it's a topic we investigated in an Econometrics course back in 2006. I can't recall all of the geek evaluations I performed, but the causal chart was something like this:
- Persons with more years of formal education, particularly 18+ years (master's degree & above) are more likely to be non-religious (including atheists, agnostics and questioners).
- The same group is also significantly more likely to self-identify as progressive (aka Liberal or Democrat)
- Non-religious progressives typically rely on rule of law and philosophy to guide decisions.
- Law is philosophical in nature and often open to interpretation, leading some to label this as relativism (also known as situational ethics. i.e.: persons being able to justify wrong behavior if they believe the outcome betters society as a whole).
- Therefore, progressive/left-of-center thinkers tend to make more decisions that society as a whole deems unethical.
- Conservatives/right-of-center thinkers often have fewer years of formal education, are frequent church-goers, have lower incomes and are more concerned with religious after life/post-death issues. Conservatives also are less likely to lean on secular philosophy for making important decisions.
- many societal right/wrong issues are biblically based
- Concern for religious consequences and the law, along with a higher sensitivity toward right/wrong decisions, often lead conservatives to make decisions that society views as ethical.
My conclusion was that an evaluation of ethics is difficult to impossible, unless all parties can agree on a mutual foundation of ethics. If the bible is used as the core, then conservatives hold a significant edge. However, if secular philosophy is the foundation, then it could be effectively argued that either group holds the ethical edge based on the particular situation.
P.S.; Social Acceptability Bias was minimized by not labeling it a survey of ethics.
Ken:
Thanks for the post... yes, I agree with your assessment.
Regarding Social Acceptability bias, it cannot be minimized merely by failing to label the survey an "ethics survey"... its the nature of the question and the situational evaulation the respondent makes regarding the question... it happens all the time with exit-polls... no one labels the polls... the questions are just asked....
Post a Comment