[gunsite]

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found.

Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."

If your beliefs don't justify gaps in status, you could be left frustrated and disheartened, according to the researchers, Jaime Napier and John Jost of New York University. They conducted both a U.S.-centric survey and a more internationally focused one to arrive at the findings.

"Our research suggests that inequality takes a greater psychological toll on liberals than on conservatives," the researchers write in the June issue of the journal Psychological Science, "apparently because liberals lack ideological rationalizations that would help them frame inequality in a positive (or at least neutral) light."

The results support and further explain a Pew Research Center survey from 2006, in which 47 percent of conservative Republicans in the U.S. described themselves as "very happy," while only 28 percent of liberal Democrats indicated such cheer.

[Maxim Litvinov]

So a better title is "why conservatives are morally bankrupt"?

[gunsite]

how does it fell to be so hopelessly wrong and clueless. if anyone has no morals or standards it's cry baby liberals. don't just talk do some research.

[Maxim Litvinov]

First, please use English. This is an English-language forum.

Second, as your article points out, conservatives are less concerned about the injustice that occurs through inequality of opportunity. It is apparently this lack of moral concern - ie. the moral bankruptcy of conservatives - that is supposedly leading to different contentment outcomes.

[NYYS]

Of course conservatives are happier - they're wealthier.

So a better title is "why conservatives are morally bankrupt"?

I say this a lot to you Maxim: Boo fucking hoo.

"It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others,"

It's not a big problem because it's unable to be fixed. I was born to parents that stressed education and hard work. I have a far, far, far, far better chance of success than someone from the exact same socioeconomic background whose parents don't give a fuck. How are you going to fix that? Force my parents to take a more hands off approach? Force them to not make me study and kick my ass when I bring home bad grades?

Some people don't stand a chance. Sorry, but nothing can be done about it. We already make sure that everyone has access to as much education as they want and that they cannot starve or die in the streets (all we've got to take care of is this health care problem). Nothing more can be done.

[Kylie]

Since you say this is researched material, I expect to have citations in the form of links by tomorrow; otherwise, say goodbye to your little thread.

[Maxim Litvinov]

It's not a big problem because it's unable to be fixed.

That is not a statement of logic.

Characterises your whole argument, really. Yet another appeal to idiocy and emotion over reason. Typical right-wing nonsense.

[Phred]

Kylie, the study gunsite has quoted from is this one --

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200 ... anliberals



Phred

[Dan]

So a better title is "why conservatives are morally bankrupt"?

Which would be false. Conservatives are more apt to give to give to charity and to volunteer.

Second, as your article points out, conservatives are less concerned about the injustice that occurs through inequality of opportunity.

You conflate injustice and inequality. Why are unequal opportunities automatically unjust?

[Maxim Litvinov]

Why are unequal opportunities automatically unjust?

You need to even ask that question? The essence of justice is 'people getting what they deserve'. If two people who deserve the same thing are getting something different, that's by definition unjust.

See Rawls, for instance.

[Kylie]

Thanks, Phred. You saved this thread.

[NYYS]

That is not a statement of logic.

That's true, clearly something can be a problem even if it's unfixable, I hoped you'd get that, but whatever.

Anyway, since it is impossible to fix there is no reason to get worked up over it.

If two people who deserve the same thing are getting something different, that's by definition unjust.

Fine, then you need to show us widespread differences in income between people who do the same job at roughly the same ability. Not differences in income between CEOs and burger flippers. Which, outside of the "women only make X% of what men do" is impossible. You apparently believe that all humans innately deserve to live a similar quality life as everyone else, so when this is not the case you claim that people are not getting what they deserve. Again, this is based on your beliefs and what feels good to you, and can very easily be countered by someone saying "I feel that people deserve to be compensated in line with the demand for their skills and the number of people that have them."

[Maxim Litvinov]

Anyway, since it is impossible to fix there is no reason to get worked up over it.

Again, more simple-mindedness. There is no 'fix' to life to make it 100% wonderful but that by no means implies that there is no imperative to make things better (as you would suggest).

Which, outside of the "women only make X% of what men do" is impossible.

Well, women make up a majority of the population, so the fact that they continue to earn less for the same work is actually a pretty significant dent in the idea of a meritocratic society. It's like you saying 'prove there is a problem with obesity, but do it outside talking about the 50% of the population that are fattest'

Aside from that though, whether or not inequality of opportunity occurs (it clearly does), is really not necessary to me proving my argument here - because all that's being pointed out is that conservatives have an immoral attitude. This does not depend on opportunity not being equal, but on their own words as to what they think about societies where opportunities aren't equal - conservatives apparently believe in the proposition that "it is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others".

Their own position condemns them, requiring no emotion to do so and receiving no defence from your non-rational rejoinders.

[Dan]

You need to even ask that question? The essence of justice is 'people getting what they deserve'.

And why do two people deserve the same opportunities?

Well, women make up a majority of the population, so the fact that they continue to earn less for the same work is actually a pretty significant dent in the idea of a meritocratic society.

Or it could mean that they don't do the same work.

Men (regardless of sector, job type or dependent care status) spend more hours per week in paid employment than women (44.1 hours versus 40.6), are more likely to work paid overtime (34% versus 28%), unpaid overtime (55% versus 45%) and do supplemental work at home (58% versus 43%). They also spend more hours per month, on average, in paid overtime (12 hours versus 10 hours) and unpaid overtime (20 hours per month versus 14 hours). Men also have heavier travel demands (more likely to have to spend weekdays and weekends away).
http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/work-travail/report1/index.html

Woman also use significantly more sick leave, which is negatively correlated with pay.

Any pay difference is likely due to the fact that woman work significantly less than men.

[Maxim Litvinov]

If you really need everything explained to you, I'd suggest you look through Rawls or the reasons why discrimination is considered wrong - you might want to reflect on why racism is considered wrong, for instance.

[Dan]

If you really need everything explained to you, I'd suggest you look through Rawls or the reasons why discrimination is considered wrong - you might want to reflect on why racism is considered wrong, for instance.

What has discrimination to do with anything?

Unequal opportunities can have a lot to do with factors that have nothing to do with discrimination (inherent ability, social environment growing up, parent's situation, etc.).

So again, why do two people deserve the same opportunities?

[ThereBeDragons]

Dan, can you explain, concisely, exactly why discrimination is wrong.

[Maxim Litvinov]

What has discrimination to do with anything?

Discrimination, by definition, is the process of treating things/people differently. So when you are asking why it is wrong to treat people differently or 'allow people' to be treated differently (ie. have a system that does not provide equal opportunities) you are precisely talking about discrimination.

I would have thought you could see that.

So, again, your question is as basic as asking something like "why is racism wrong?" - namely, 'what is wrong with treating people differently according to factors beyond their control?'.

[Dan]

Dan, can you explain, concisely, exactly why discrimination is wrong.

Discrimination is not, in itself, wrong. it is only wrong when it based on incorrect assumptions or when an over-generalization is applied when more accurate information is available. Discrimination is sometimes no more than basic common sense.

Discrimination, by definition, is the process of treating things/people differently. So when you are asking why it is wrong to treat people differently or 'allow people' to be treated differently (ie. have a system that does not provide equal opportunities) you are precisely talking about discrimination.

Actively treating differently (discrimination) is not the same as allowing the natural course of events to take place (not forcing equal opportunities). Don't conflate the too.

'what is wrong with treating people differently according to factors beyond their control?'.

A strawman. That's not what I'm arguing.

You have avoided my question as to why two people deserve the same opportunities.

[ThereBeDragons]

Okay, Dan.

Why would it be wrong for the United States to have "no blacks need apply" "blacks not allowed" "blacks to the back of the bus" signs everywhere?