The Righteous Mind-Jonathan Haidt 2014

Political views are rationalizations of moral intuitions. They are demonstrably not the result of dispassionate analysis by individuals.

A small number of moral intuitions are broadly held across time and cultures and can be “explained” on the basis of evolutionary pressures on mankind.

The prevalence of the six logically defined and statistically confirmed dimensions differ markedly between liberal and conservative minded people in various cultures.

1. Care/Harm

Desire to protect children and weaker others from harm. Caring, kindness, gentleness, nurturance, compassion, feelings, empathy. Liberals and conservatives both show an interest in this dimension of morality. Liberals value this dimension most highly. Conservative men and libertarians, on average, show much less interest in this dimension.

2. Fairness/Reciprocity/Cheating

In a social setting, there is a need to rely upon others keeping their word, being honest, doing their share of work, etc. Justice, rights, cooperation, deception, trust. Liberals tend to interpret this in terms of equality. Equal rights, equal opportunity and equal results. Conservatives are closer to the evolutionary basis as seen in game theory / the prisoners dilemma / “tit for tat” winning strategy. They highly value proportionality, closely linking results to inputs or effort.

3. Liberty/Oppression

No one wants the “alpha dog” to take advantage of their position. Individual and group opposition to domination, tyranny, restrictions, bullies and cruelty. Liberals and conservatives both value this dimension in modern, western, secular, commercial societies. They define the oppressor differently, with liberals focusing on business and institutional sources of power and conservatives focusing on government and regulators. Libertarians value this dimension most highly. These first 3 sources of morality are more individual oriented, mediating the tensions between individuals and groups.

4. Group Loyalty

Clear commitment to the group. More than “limited liability”. Betrayal, in-group attachment, patriotism, nationalism, betrayal, self-sacrifice, us vs. them, tribe, religion, party, flag, clan, neighbors, family. Conservatives value this dimension very highly, with felt loyalties to several groups. Liberals value this dimension, but not nearly as highly; with a tendency to value the largest groups: nation, humanity, nature. The liberal focus on “diversity” and valuing others, outgroups and the “oppressed” is very different from the conservative worldview. Western, secular, commercial societies value this dimension less.

5. Authority/Respect

Larger groups require some degree of hierarchy. Leader and follower. This is a complement to the liberty/oppressor value. Respect for authority, leader, institution, rules, history. Safety, order, predictability. Obedience, deference, submission. Against subversion, revolution. This is the classic conservative value, supporting the known value/benefits of a given system against the potential value/risks of change. Modern, individualistic liberals tend to not value this dimension highly, instead choosing to “challenge authority”.

6. Purity/Sanctity

The sixth dimension differs from the first 5. It is not so clearly about managing the “individual to group” challenges. It focuses on the disgust/gag reflex to things or situations that are so threatening as to be beyond consideration. This takes place at both the practical and the abstract levels. Degradation, disgust, disease, infection, dirt, germs, contamination, carnality, body, sex. Piety, chastity, temperance, compliance, burning, cleanliness, food rules. Everyone has some sensitivity to this dimension, but conservatives have much higher concern. Research says that conservatives, on average, have a lower interest in new (unsafe, novel) activities or experiences. Moral values 4-6 retain higher priority outside of western, commercial, secular societies. Liberal references to purity may focus on things like the environment.

Basic References

Home

https://peterlevine.ws/?p=14220

https://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/study/jonathan-haidt-morality/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

https://www.wired.com/2012/10/the-psychology-of-liberals-and-conservatives/?gclid=Cj0KCQiAoY-PBhCNARIsABcz773DJzBnc5VoJf5iUksyynjWCWM-bcXuNVXNGat-dSIuvliFr7UOl9EaAh9zEALw_wcB

Applications

Haidt is a self-professed “liberal” who intuitively/instinctively rejected the “rational” morality theories he learned in graduate school in the 1980’s. During his early research on alternate approaches, he had the “aha” insights that 1) other cultures have very different moral values and that 2) moral/political views are intuitive and rationalized. He hoped/hopes that liberals can see that their more limited moral palate (3 items) is not the only one and that this difference between including or not including the other 3 bases is a huge insight, even if liberals choose to not value the other 3 dimensions. He analyzed national politics in each election cycle from 2000, highlighting the large advantage that Republican politicians have in monopolizing the 3 other dimensions. In 2016, he advised the Dems to fight against Trump on the “conservative” moral dimensions of loyalty (Putin?), authority/order (Trump chaos/revolution/policy changes), and purity (sex allegations) instead of policy positions or personal character.

How the Democrats Can Use Moral Foundations Theory Against Trump

Haidt collaborated with a CATO scholar to analyze the 2016 Democratic and Republican candidates for the presidency, analyzing their supporters in terms of the Moral Foundations Theory.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10918164/donald-trump-morality

https://www.cato.org/commentary/donald-trump-supporters-think-about-morality-differently-other-voters-heres-how

Research and Critics

The Wiki post has some references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

The basic conclusions are supported, but all details are not. The 1 Care / 2 Fairness versus other dimensions emphasis between liberals and conservatives is supported. But, statistically, there may just be individual versus group moral foundations (2 dimensions versus 5-6).

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2021/03/15/do-liberals-and-conservatives-really-have-different-moral-foundations-differences-may-be-less-clear-cut-than-often-claimed/

Group? Which group? Small or large? In-group or out-group? Research is now focused on defining questions that clarify in-group versus out-group attraction and then, the difference between liberals versus conservatives, if any.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.579908/full

Academics have been busy working on the details. One criticism is that the 5 or 6 dimensions were defined in an ad hoc manner, rather than part of an overall theory of how man evolved. One group has stepped up to propose a theory that is solely based upon the various forms of cooperation, resulting in 7 dimensions.

What’s Wrong with Moral Foundations Theory, and How to get Moral Psychology Right

On the academic left, Haidt’s “moral equivalence” approach to the 3 modern, secular, liberal values and the 3 historic, religious, conservative values has been sharply criticized. An alternate view that highlights bias/bigotry, social dominance, right-wing authoritarianism, Schwartz Value Theory and Evolutionary/Coalitional Theory (ECT) has been proposed.

https://www.salon.com/2018/09/02/are-trump-supporters-evil-or-just-wrong-political-scientists-struggle-with-morality/

Summary

Haidt and his colleagues have defined 6 dimensions of moral thinking which underly modern political views that make sense based on evolution. The “west” could clearly learn something about the moral/political views of other societies that did not have the same historical evolution into a commercial/largely secular situation. Politicians could seek to more effectively target their messages to trigger all of these 6 values in their target audiences. Civic minded individuals could promote greater understanding of these insights to lessen the Manichaean “good versus evil” polarization we see in politics today.