Status Quo Moral Privileges

DOES THE STATUS QUO HAVE ANY MORAL PRIVILEGE.

This paper focuses on two theoretical questions about the nature of moral judgments. And how and why do moral judgments differ across cultures and individuals?

Moral Judgments.

I examine these theoretical questions through three empirical studies of everyday moral phenomena. The first study looks at recent research that suggests conservatives are more concerned about moral purity than liberals.

I Found That;

1. Conservatives are more concerned about sexual purity than liberals, but this effect is weak or non-existent for food purity.

2. Moral disapproval and disgust are strongly correlated. Independent effects such as conservatism on purity concerns. These results support a more restrictive view of the difference between liberal and conservative purity. Additionally, conservative concerns about sexual purity may be fueled by their greater support for the status qu.

A second study asked whether people would rate household items such as refrigerators as morally good or bad.

I found that commodities were seen as morally positive, and moral appraisals of things other than mere preferences were positively related to participants’ age and political conservatism. These findings suggest that people value everyday items morally. This is done through a process of pure moral exposure, or through a status qu bias that sees them as embodying systemic ideologies.

A third study looked at why people are against using performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids.

I tested whether this might be due in part to status qu bias, and participants were encouraged to avoid drug use if it was intended to restore rather than alter a person’s ability to maintain the status quo. I found that I was more likely to accept. It is not a newly established group practice. Taken together,

These Three Studies;

 1. The boundaries of the moral sphere are wider than harm,

 2. Moral judgments are characterized by significant individual differences that may be relevant to the status quo. Moreover, the status qu can play an important role in shaping everyday moral judgments.

Another recent proposal by Bostrom and Ord (2006) suggests that people’s moral opposition to improved performance is based in part on the status qu bias (Eidelman & Crandall, 2008; Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991; Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988).

According to this view, there are few relevant differences between the properties of steroids and dietary supplements, or Ritalin and coffee. Rather, the fact that new performance-enhancing drugs are perceived as game-changing is what makes them so reprehensible. Consistent with traditional examples, but now represents a clear improvement in the sport of running (Sandel, 2007).

My research used a variety of scenarios to determine whether taking a performance-enhancing drug altered or restored a person’s current performance level and whether it was used long-term or recently adopted by a group. I decided.

I Tested This Hypothesis In The Following Way:

Consistent with an explanation for status qu bias, participants were more likely to report that if the same drug intervention restored more than improved an individual’s  skill level, and if it was done anew, it would be more likely to maintain the status qu (i.e., maintain ) is more acceptable when it is part of an accepted group in training.

These findings provide initial support for the role of status quo biases in explaining people’s moral opposition to improvement.

Article -by – Hamad Hanif , Posted -by- Ali Hadar

Follow our Social Media Platforms.

FACEBOOK   TIKTOK   INSTAGRAM  YOUTUBE

Download PDF of this Article click link below.

Status Quo