Understanding the Complexity of Morality Across Political Lines
Written on
Chapter 1: The Political Divide
Have you ever pondered why discussions with those holding opposing political views can be so challenging? Often, we resort to labels such as "crazy," "stupid," or "racist." But is the situation truly that straightforward? Or is there a deeper complexity at play that complicates our ability to communicate effectively?
Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory, elaborated in his insightful work, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, suggests that morality can be dissected into at least six dimensions. These dimensions are weighted differently depending on one’s political ideology.
Haidt posits that individuals on the political right tend to appreciate all six moral dimensions relatively equally, whereas those on the left prioritize three of them significantly more. This divergence means that when right-leaning individuals articulate their viewpoints, those on the left may dismiss many of their arguments as invalid, while the reverse often occurs as well.
There exists a substantial tension among these six moral dimensions. Focusing excessively on a select few can lead to a partial view that obstructs our understanding of broader interests. This limitation is evident across the entire political spectrum.
In this article, I will outline the six moral dimensions, illustrate how they vary with political affiliation, and provide examples of how overlooking specific dimensions can lead to significant miscalculations.
For the sake of clarity, I will refer to those on the political left as "progressives," those on the right as "social conservatives," and those who prioritize individual freedom as "libertarians."
Section 1.1: The Six Moral Dimensions
Here are the six moral dimensions as articulated by Haidt:
- Care / Harm: Compassion for the vulnerable and suffering.
- Fairness / Cheating: Vigilance over whether individuals receive their due and the punishment of wrongdoers.
- Liberty / Oppression: Resistance against constraints on personal freedom; a collective push against bullies.
- Loyalty / Betrayal: Awareness of in-group versus out-group dynamics; appreciation of tribal customs and disdain for traitors.
- Authority / Subversion: Valuation of structure and hierarchy; disapproval of those who undermine legitimate authority.
- Sanctity / Degradation: Recognition of purity and the need to protect certain ideals from degradation.
After reviewing these dimensions, it becomes apparent how they align with various political affiliations. Progressives generally emphasize the care/harm dimension, whereas social conservatives focus more on loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Libertarians prioritize liberty above all else.
While individuals may not fit neatly into these classifications, they likely hold varying degrees of value across all six dimensions. For instance, the fairness/cheating dimension is interpreted differently by progressives and social conservatives. Progressives advocate for equality among groups, while social conservatives emphasize merit and proportionality.
Section 1.2: The Sacred Values of Political Groups
Every political group holds certain values as sacrosanct.
- Progressives: Their paramount value is advocating for the oppressed, leading them to challenge hierarchies they view as oppressive. They strive for systemic changes to alleviate social injustices.
- Libertarians: They prioritize individual freedom and view government as a potential threat to personal liberties. Their ideology often aligns with social conservatives in opposing government welfare systems.
- Social Conservatives: Their sacred value is the preservation of traditions that foster moral integrity within communities. They recognize the importance of moral capital, which is essential for regulating selfish behavior and promoting cooperation.
Whenever a group feels their sacred values are under threat, they are likely to react with indignation. This discord arises from the differing values held by each group, leading to misunderstandings in contentious discussions.
Despite these differences, each group contributes valuable insights to societal discourse. Below, I will discuss how each group’s core values can cultivate a thriving society.
Chapter 2: Insights from Each Political Perspective
The Forum: The Moral Psychology of Political Polarization: Many Causes and a Few Possible Responses - This video delves into the moral frameworks that underlie political divides, exploring the complexities and potential solutions to enhance understanding.
How Morals Influence If You're Liberal Or Conservative - This video examines how various moral foundations shape our political beliefs and choices, shedding light on the underlying psychological principles.
Progressive Wisdom
Progressives excel at identifying specific harms suffered by marginalized groups. Their proposed solutions often involve governmental action, which can be both beneficial and detrimental depending on the context.
For instance, during the mid-20th century in the U.S., lead exposure from oil refineries was a significant public health hazard affecting children's development. Despite awareness, industry resistance to regulation persisted until the government intervened, resulting in lower lead levels and subsequent improvements in public health outcomes, including increased IQ scores and reduced crime rates.
Libertarian Wisdom
Libertarians hold the liberty/oppression dimension in high regard, often advocating for minimal governmental interference in markets. They argue that government meddling disrupts market efficiencies, as illustrated by the American healthcare system, where insurance models create inefficiencies.
In contrast, elective procedures like laser eye surgery illustrate the benefits of a free market, where prices have significantly decreased due to direct consumer payment, driving competition and quality improvements.
Social Conservative Wisdom
Social conservatives emphasize order and stability, often resisting changes perceived as threats to moral capital. They value all six moral dimensions, enabling them to discern potential societal repercussions from changes to existing institutions.
For example, while they do not oppose technological advancements like the Internet, they caution against alterations that might undermine foundational societal structures.
Haidt argues that our moral frameworks are inherently group-oriented, fostering cooperation and reducing selfishness within communities. Social conservatives often critique progressive initiatives, believing that these efforts can inadvertently weaken societal bonds and moral integrity.
In conclusion, understanding the differing moral frameworks across political ideologies reveals why discussions can become contentious. Acknowledging that each group has valid points can lead to more constructive dialogues and a more cohesive society.
Thank you for reading! Most of the insights presented in this article are drawn from Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion.