Originally Posted by miceelf
I don't see how deficient isn't a value judgment. It's at least an evaluative statement. Different would be a non-evaluative statement. One can note that some people have brown eyes and some have blue without regarding either as deficient; that's how Haidt's model is intended. But claiming that scoring low on this index that isn't necessarily good or bad is proof of deficiency or lacking sensitivity or whatnot is simply not what haidt intended and also seems at most a wording difference from value judgment, at least at the scale of better/worse.
And the corollary of the above is that conservatives are deficient because they lack sensitivity to fairness and care, relative to liberals. If one wanted to treat Haidt's moral scale as something that measured deficiencies, rather than a framework for describing variation.
I'd also point out that your distinction between a statement of deficiency and a statement of values is exactly the kind of distinction that you have avoided strenuously when we've discussed accusations of racism.
I'm still having a problem with the idea that having less of everything is somehow prefferable to having higher concentrations of some things in some areas, (at least that's how I read the argument), as it leads to some sorts of moral blind spots.
The self quantification of these things is highly suspect. All one could empirically conclude from all this is that certain groups are under the impression, no, are willing to say
they have certain moral qualities, quantified by themselves, when surveyed.
Maybe it's just me but this amounts to pretty weak "science".