Loyalty, authority, and fairness are also about other people. A lone person can't be loyal, authoritative, or fair; you have to be those things to someone else.
And, as I've been saying, Harm/Care is also about the conduct of the individual: do you harm others or care for them?
> "I can't learn the material for you" as opposed to "if you want to climb Mt Everest, you have to do it for yourself rather than for someone else".
I'm not sure I understand the difference, can you make it more explicit?
"I can't learn the material for you": if I learn it, it won't achieve the go...(read more)
I did not mean to misrepresent what lawyers do (or are allowed to do). I noted they are restricted by lawyer ethics, but that was in a different comment than the one you replied to. Yes, absolutely, they not supposed to lie or even deliberately mislead, and a lawyer's reputation would suffer horribl...(read more)
> Harm/Care is unusual among the foundations in that it's other-directed. The goal is to help other people, and it does not especially matter how that occurs. \[...\] In contrast, the other foundations centre on the moral actor themselves. I cannot be just, loyal, a good follower, or pure for you.
I think my definition of rhetoric is the same as OP's: namely, the art of shaping words or a speech to be beautiful, moving, convincing, or otherwise effective. How to best verbally convince others of an idea: I think that's a useful term.
In particular the OP referred to _dispositio_ (concise, add...(read more)
> I don’t think that’s true. Lots of people are bothered by this. Maybe you’re right, maybe a _majority_ is unbothered, but this is interesting only to the extent that it doesn’t embody a larger pattern of what proportion of people care about injustice.
I agree that most people are bothered by anyt...(read more)
> Are you sure? I’ve met a lot of people (“average people”, not rationalists) who take the view of “yeah, he can talk real impressively, but it’s all bullshit, no doubt”. Many people like “simple talk”, i.e. speech that simply lays out facts, and are suspicious of impressive/skillful rhetoric.
This seems to depend a lot on social context.
Lawyers are the quintessential speakers-for-hire who apply rhetoric to mercenary causes. Yet lawyers are accepted and high-status in most parts of society. In play, debate clubs are often popular; and at a recent LW meetup we played an Ideological Turin...(read more)
Unlike the regular trolley problem, this one is similar to moral choices made by many people every day.
As you walk down the street, you see a man point a gun at another. Do you interpose your body to save the stranger's life at the cost of your own?
Down another street, a man points a gun at you. T...(read more)
I agree, and I didn't mean to imply otherwise.