This is not what I meant. Sorry I didn’t communicate that. In the second case, the speaker is saying that you just won’t be capable of climbing Mt Everest if you are trying to do it ‘for’ someone else[’s benefit]. It has to be something you are doing for yourself. In both cases, the person climbing the mountain is you.
And so, I don’t see a significant difference between Harm/Care and the other foundations.
There does seem to be a difference in that Harm/Care is at least ostensibly about other people (and their welfare), whereas purity is about the conduct of the individual
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?
This is not what I meant. Sorry I didn’t communicate that. In the second case, the speaker is saying that you just won’t be capable of climbing Mt Everest if you are trying to do it ‘for’ someone else[’s benefit]. It has to be something you are doing for yourself. In both cases, the person climbing the mountain is you.
There does seem to be a difference in that Harm/Care is at least ostensibly about other people (and their welfare), whereas purity is about the conduct of the individual
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 agree. But it seems to me that we would say we value those because they’re the right way to act not because of how they affect others.
In the harm/care case it’s less clear to me that we would say it’s about comportment as opposed to effect, but I could see that being the case