Disruption necessitates exploration and uncertainty, which means that "trying new things" is not merely a well-worn cliché but an urgent moral imperative. It is, it seems to me, sacred.
The dramatic turnaround in views about same-sex marriage says hopeful things about Americans' capacity for tolerance, empathy, and fairness, and about our willingness to prize family in all its forms.
Why has the Libertarian Party -- and more importantly, the much broadly based new liberty movement -- failed to make a significant electoral impact, despite its recent tailwinds?
Haidt maintains that when we confront a moral or political question, our first reaction is intuitive. We use reason to defend our intuitions rather than to form them.
Under a non-compulsory voting system with fewer people voting, smaller lobby groups can easily sway a small section of the people to the polls and thereby manipulate the outcome of the political process.
bama just flat-out failed to engage in the debate the first time around, but this time he came to play. And won decisively. Whenever we engage, we win.
The Democratic argument is winning. It is winning both because it makes more logical sense, but because it resonates with American values of a community and family where we help each other make it.
For those who believe in a society, that to some degree we are all in this together, there are three choices: resist change, stagnate or progress. So far, no one has discovered how to progress without the institutions of government.
America has placed too much faith in the power of markets for the past 30 years, a belief not even the financial crisis could shake. The country risks...
Author Jonathan Haidt enjoins liberals to make a sincere attempt to listen to conservatives and appreciate sincerely the values they hold dear, and even more, to see that that they are generally necessary for any society to hang together.
This increase in debate viewership is a very good thing. Or at least it could be if questions would go deeper -- beneath the surface of mere talking point positions -- to the moral or philosophical reasoning process candidates use to arrive at their views.
As far as science is concerned, free will is tricky. Most of us seem to think that we, at least some of the time, face genuine choices and are responsible for the decisions we make.
The crucial question is, of course, the interpretation of words. Political radicals do not need to pore over thousands of pages of philosophical text to come to a conclusion on any perceived political malaise.
Once again we do the rigid Kabuki dance, leading once again to political stalemate -- this time over raising the federal debt ceiling. Even with the ...
In the wake of last week's bombing and massacre in Oslo, Norway, its perpetrator Anders Behring Breivik has come under intense scrutiny. Breivik enume...
As Plato and Aristotle knew, many of the world's problems are caused or fueled by doxa, half-baked opinions and false beliefs that, for one reason or another, have remained unexamined.
Krugman is pessimistic that calls for greater civility in political discourse will be met with success because, in his view, there are two sides to the debate that do not share a common morality.
One of the core goals of Assange's project is to dismantle what he calls conspiracies, but he doesn't mean 'conspiracy' in the usual sense of people sitting around in a room plotting some crime or deception.
Though Beijing and Washington appear to be operating under very similar fundamental principals, I would caution, against making too much of these philosophical similarities.
Our view is that defining "good" is like defining God or beauty. It is crucially important but completely unique to the man and up to them to take responsibility for.
An essay published by Yukio Hatoyama, the soon-to-be prime minister of Japan, has caused a big stir abroad, which in turn caused a bigger stir back in Japan.