Comments on: Democrats and Republicans agree that Justice & Fairness are about Equity, not Equality or Impartiality http://www.polipsych.com/2010/02/20/democrats-and-republicans-agree-that-justice-fairness-are-about-equity-not-equality-or-impartiality/ Exploring Political Attitudes Through Moral Psychology Sun, 29 Aug 2010 15:48:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ravi http://www.polipsych.com/2010/02/20/democrats-and-republicans-agree-that-justice-fairness-are-about-equity-not-equality-or-impartiality/comment-page-1/#comment-573 Ravi Mon, 09 Aug 2010 09:10:41 +0000 http://www.polipsych.com/?p=110#comment-573 That last idea re: retribution makes good sense to me. One thing that made the Tea Party people most angry was the fact that investment bankers, who had caused the economic crisis, should have been allowed to go bankrupt. Thanks for your comments. That last idea re: retribution makes good sense to me. One thing that made the Tea Party people most angry was the fact that investment bankers, who had caused the economic crisis, should have been allowed to go bankrupt. Thanks for your comments.

]]> By: wreaver http://www.polipsych.com/2010/02/20/democrats-and-republicans-agree-that-justice-fairness-are-about-equity-not-equality-or-impartiality/comment-page-1/#comment-572 wreaver Mon, 09 Aug 2010 07:21:10 +0000 http://www.polipsych.com/?p=110#comment-572 Regarding, "Rather, let's see if people are really getting what they deserve in life. Do investment bankers really deserve million dollar bonuses? I don't think they necessarily produce much more than many, and obviously in the past few years, their collective output has been negative. So I see taxing banks to recoup losses as a matter of equity/proportionality, not equality." My impression is that people who self-identify as "conservatives"or "libertarian" tend to see taxation as an act of harm. (Some see it as a "necessary evil" while some see it as just "evil".) So, this may complicate your strategy. An alternate strategy may be to use a "us versus them" type argument. I.e., make the investment bankers seem like a "them" so the "us" doesn't care if they are harmed or not. (I suspect this is more likely to work on self-identifying "conservatives" than self-identifying "libertarians".) (Perhaps there is something in the YourMorals.org database that could be used to test this hypothesis.) Also, the retribution dimension may be useful. Perhaps try to make it seem like the investment bankers have caused harm (in the sense of the types of things self-identifying "conservatives" and "libertarians" consider harm). Thus making the taxation of the investment bankers seem like retribution. Regarding,
“Rather, let’s see if people are really getting what they deserve in life. Do investment bankers really deserve million dollar bonuses? I don’t think they necessarily produce much more than many, and obviously in the past few years, their collective output has been negative. So I see taxing banks to recoup losses as a matter of equity/proportionality, not equality.”

My impression is that people who self-identify as “conservatives”or “libertarian” tend to see taxation as an act of harm. (Some see it as a “necessary evil” while some see it as just “evil”.) So, this may complicate your strategy.

An alternate strategy may be to use a “us versus them” type argument. I.e., make the investment bankers seem like a “them” so the “us” doesn’t care if they are harmed or not. (I suspect this is more likely to work on self-identifying “conservatives” than self-identifying “libertarians”.)

(Perhaps there is something in the YourMorals.org database that could be used to test this hypothesis.)

Also, the retribution dimension may be useful. Perhaps try to make it seem like the investment bankers have caused harm (in the sense of the types of things self-identifying “conservatives” and “libertarians” consider harm). Thus making the taxation of the investment bankers seem like retribution.

]]>