Just because psychology studies human behavior, doesn’t render every trend they see a pathology. I’m bringing up the fact that there’s an interesting and reliable predictor here. One which shows there’s a clear difference between liberal-leaning personalities and conservative-leaning ones.
He views the demonization that has marred American political debate in recent decades as a massive failure in moral imagination. We assume everyone’s ethical compass points in the same direction and label those whose views don’t align with our sense of right and wrong as either misguided or evil. In fact, he argues, there are multiple due norths.
“I think of liberals as colorblind,” he says in a hushed tone that conveys the quiet intensity of a low-key crusader. "We have finely tuned sensors for harm and injustice but are blind to other moral dimensions. Look at the way the word ‘wall’ is used in liberal discourse. It’s almost always related to the idea that we have to knock them down,
Conservatives Live in a Different Moral Universe – And Here’s Why It Matters
Do these data suggest a “rigidity of the left” hypothesis? No, but they do suggest the possibility of a “moral color-blindness” of the left, particu- larly the extreme left. When thinking about why conservatives generally oppose gay marriage, immigration, and stem cell research, for example, liberals simply cannot see any moral reasons. They are therefore free to as- sume the worst—that conservatives are really motivated by homophobia, racism, xenophobia, and ignorant fear of new technologies. If conservatives are motivated by such immoral forces, it must therefore be the case that conservatives don’t care very much about moral concerns such as harm to innocent victims, the rights of oppressed people, or justice more generally. If one believes this, and one is asked to complete the MFQ as a “typical conservative” would, then one would give inaccurately low ratings to items related to the two modern foundations.
Though, to be fair, he does walk back that analogy in that particular paper.
Are we disagreeing here? The psychological research seems to me to be pointing at the idea that liberals and conservatives obviously both live according to moral values. Just that the different personalities value and emphasize different values that don’t make sense to each other
OK-- Here’s the thing.
The five moral foundations in Haidt’s theory are
Care/harm
Fairness/cheating
Loyalty/betrayal
Authority/subversion
Sanctity/degradation
He later added “Liberty/oppression”, but the original conception was five, with liberals especially valuing the first two, and conservatives especially valuing the last three.
After surveying his subjects on their moral values, and their political inclinations, Haidt then challenged the liberals and the conservatives to think as if they were their ideological opponents. The conservatives were able to understand the world as liberals do, but the liberals were unable to understand the world as conservatives do. Essentially, a conservative can understand care and fairness, but a liberal is likely to misunderstand, if not ridicule the positive associations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
Conservative philosophy has long ruminated on the problem of “who is fit to rule”. and even who belongs in a particular society. A particularly crude manifestation is their obsession with Treason. Now, suppose that all five dimensions are relevant to making a morally defensible decision. Can liberals make a morally defensible decision? Not by that criteria. In a morally defensible society, would it be wise to trust the partially amoral with governance? Probably not. What should we do with the morally incompetent?
Well, the simple answer is that those aren’t moral values. Actual moral values serve everyone. At best those values serve the in-group at the expense of any out-groups. At worst those values serve destruction.
Consider how Nazi ideology played on those values and how it would have collapsed, and the whole world would have been better off, without those values.
2 Likes
I have a strong distrust for any framework that wants to put everything on lines with polar opposites and split people into two camps.
1 Like
I have a strong distrust for any framework that wants to put everything on lines with polar opposites
You don’t like Aristotle?
split people into two camps.
Potentially, you’ve got five (or six) dimensions to work with. But some people think that’s just too complicated.
So I suppose we are in agreement there. The problem I initially was looking at was Haidt’s dropping values into “liberal” and “conservative” buckets. It’s an overly simplistic model that only seems to serve those that would want to steer the conversation / debate.
A lot of it relies on “self reported” political identity.
That’s from
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (5), 1029-1046.
I’m still looking for the “now, mimic your ideological opponent” paper
That might explain the low importance of ingroup/loyalty which should start increasing again if you have people who self identify as socialists.
I don’t understand purity/sanctity though. Whose definition of sanctity are we talking about here? I could just be missing something because I am not feeling good.
1 Like
From the Moral Foundations Website
- Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
Part of the point of moral foundations theory is that some of the motivations may seem absurd and petty to some individuals, but consistently meaningful to others.
Of course, she’s appealing to care/harm, but she’s motivated by purity/sanctity.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
