Why are good people divided by politics and religion? Why do some people like spicy food while others do not? The answers, it turns out, are related.
In his groundbreaking book, “The Righteous Mind,” Professor Jonathan Haidt attempts to answer the first question by developing a framework that he calls Moral Foundations Theory (MFT). Haidt argues that humans have six moral foundations through which we view politics and policy: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression.
These moral foundations, according to Haidt, act as our political “taste buds” and explain our political preferences in the same way that our lingual taste buds explain our culinary preferences. Some political ideologies rely on the Care/Harm foundation while others rely on Loyalty/Betrayal. Some people taste Fairness in terms of equality while others do so in terms of proportionality. Some people prefer salty food, some prefer sweet.
The Evolution of Haidt’s Moral Foundations
Haidt, a psychologist, leans heavily on evolutionary psychology to explain the origins of these foundations. I’ll briefly review each and discuss the political implications of these moral taste buds. They are also summarized in the table below.
“The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion,” Haidt 2012
The Care/Harm foundation developed through the protection of children—our ancestors cared for their children and helped them avoid harm in hopes of witnessing the survival of their genes in future generations. The Care/Harm foundation is seen in contemporary politics when Liberals put a “Save Darfur” bumper sticker on their car or when Conservatives do the same with a “Wounded Warriors” sticker. These are causes that interest us because we care about the individuals involved and wish for them to avoid harm. Interestingly, Liberals rely more on the Care/Harm foundation than Conservatives—this is evident in Liberal critiques of “heartless” Conservative policies on healthcare, education, or government spending.
The Fairness/Cheating foundation evolved through self-interest and reciprocal altruism. All organisms are self-interested, but once our ancestors developed the ability to remember past interactions, they could perform altruistic deeds with the expectation of a returned favor. They could also enforce consequences for a violation of such trust. Today, the Left demonstrates the Fairness/Cheating foundation when discussing social justice—think of debates about economic inequality in which Democrats argue that the wealthy are “not paying their fair share.” The Right demonstrates the Fairness/Cheating foundation when it argues that the government takes money from hardworking Americans (through taxes) and gives it to lazy people (on welfare and unemployment) and illegal immigrants (through healthcare and education). When speaking about fairness, Liberals are generally alluding to equality while Conservatives are generally alluding to proportionality. Hence, the disconnect—at least in part. Liberals still rely more on the fairness foundation than Conservatives, but more on that to come.
The Authority/Subversion foundation was also developed in our tribal pasts. For a group to survive, a societal structure had to be established with a leader and followers. In politics today, the Authority/Subversion foundation applies to traditions, institutions, and values. It is more natural for Conservatives to rely on this foundation than Liberals, who define themselves in opposition to hierarchy, inequality, and power.
The Loyalty/Betrayal foundation developed as our ancestors addressed adaptive challenges in coalitions. Loyalty to the group, and hence survival, was favored evolutionarily. Today, the human predilection for in-group loyalty remains and accounts for a large part of the political “us versus them” divide. The Right relies on the Loyalty/Betrayal foundation when framing debates in terms of nationalism, such as the recent debate about NFL players kneeling for the national anthem. Generally, Conservatives express this foundation more than Liberals.
The Sanctity/Degradation foundation was developed through the adaptive challenges of avoiding pathogens, parasites, and other existential threats originating from physical touch or proximity. Judged on a scale from neophilia (an attraction to new things) to neophobia (a fear of new things), Liberals score much higher for neophilia (for food, people, music, ideas) than Conservatives, who prefer to stick with what is tried and true, guarding boundaries and traditions. Social Conservatives particularly rely on the Sanctity/Degradation foundation when discussing the sanctity of life (in the abortion debate), the sanctity of marriage (in the gay rights debate), and the sanctity of self (in the contraception debate).
Through a later work, Haidt added a sixth moral foundation: the Liberty/Oppression foundation. Like the Authority/Subversion foundation, the Liberty/Oppression foundation evolved from the dynamics of group behavior, and it views authority as legitimate only in certain contexts. Both sides flex this foundation frequently. The Left relies on it in critiques of the wealthy, such as Occupy Wall Street, and in favor of those they view as victims and powerless groups. The Right flexes it in a more parochial way, concerned with the specific groups to which they belong. Conservatives say, “Don’t tread on me,” to Big Government in response to high taxes. They extend the argument to the spheres of business and nation, objecting to regulatory policy and international treaties, such as those created by the United Nations.
Connecting Moral Foundations to Political Polarization
How, then, do these moral foundations explain why good people disagree on politics and policy? The answer is that Liberals and Conservatives have different palates—our taste buds are simply not the same. In the chart below, Haidt shows that Liberals rely heavily on Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating while Conservatives rely on all five foundations somewhat equally. (Note that the Liberty/Oppression foundation is not shown in this chart, but was tested in further studies and was found to be expressed equally across ideologies.)
“Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations” by Graham, Haidt, and Nosek 2009
There it is, as clear as daylight. We are talking past each other because of our moral foundations. Democrats say that attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act show that Conservatives don’t care about low-income Americans while Republicans say that it infringes on their liberties. Democrats say that kneeling for the national anthem is a valid protest against a government that does not treat African Americans fairly while Republicans decry a lack of national loyalty, defending the sanctity of the national anthem. Read “The Righteous Mind” and the attendant body of scientific literature if you are still unconvinced.
A Call to Expand Our Palates
Despite the state of our politics today, there is hope. Haidt notes that, like taste buds, our moral foundations are “organized in advance of experience,”—this means that they are formed at birth and refined through the experiences of our lives.
For instance, I never liked spicy food until—and this is true—I was blindfolded for a taste test and bit into an extremely spicy pepper while traveling in Israel. It hurt. I washed my mouth out with cold water for about ten minutes to soothe the burn. But after that, nothing felt spicy to me anymore. As a result, I developed a palate for spice.
I believe the same can be true of our politics. It will require us to try new foods—even food we end up disliking—but we have to make the effort. Here’s to trying more spicy peppers.
If you enjoyed this article, you can read more bipartisan debates, op-eds, and interviews here. Or, follow The Righteous Mind here.
Divided We Fall is a 501c(3) non-profit publication run by a dedicated team of volunteers. We depend on the generosity of readers like you to continue our work of providing bipartisan dialogue for the politically engaged. Please consider making a tax-deductible contribution today!
Sponsored Link: Check out Americans in Support of Law Enforcement!
Joseph Schuman
Joe Schuman is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Divided We Fall. He works to set the vision of the organization and to build the team to meet that mission. Joe works as a civilian for the Department of Defense promoting innovation and emerging technology. Joe is also an Officer in the Air National Guard and a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In his spare time he can be found reading non-fiction, playing piano, and running triathlons.
7 comments
Lisa, your response completely missed the point of the article. You are actually proving Haidt’s studies as correct and making an example of yourself; you are leaning on the moral pillars of care/harm and fairness/cheating while putting on a set of blinders to ignore the other 4 pillars that influence the thought process of others, to make blanket accusations of how you THINK conservatives think; in doing so you create a strawman argument to disregard the other moral pillars that people with different thought processes draw their conclusions from, which is intellectually dishonest. The point of the book was to emphasize that in order to people to de-polarize politically and actually accomplish meaningful progress together, it is important to try and understand where others are coming from with their viewpoints by looking through a different set of lenses to understand their thought process.
Example: your reference to oppression / financial inequality as being what drives brazen looting; conservatives may see those factors as playing SOME part of the cause of rampant looting, however they will also consider other causes. Degradation of the nuclear family unit (a lot of fatherless homes – which is a phenomenon exacerbated by the fairness based welfare system disincentivizing men with children out of wedlock to stick around after a child is born because the state will take care of the mother and child), a lack of enforcement of laws on the books (liberal policy leaning towards fairness/equality/equity of outcome, but resulting in subversion of authority and further incentivizing illegal/antisocial behavior), and a decline in attendance of religious institutions (sanctity/degradation – say what you will about religion, but the principles of every religion I’ve studied are founded in the desire for peace and prosperity for humanity) which means messages of non-violence, not stealing, and helping others in need is being heard by fewer members of society, are all playing additional roles in causing the problem of brazen looting. They understand that there is financial inequality, and that in the past there were oppressive policies that targeted the poor and minorities, but will offer rebuttals that by and large the system and its laws have been changed to address those issues as best we can, and that by, say, lowering taxes across the board, necessities would be more affordable, while more money in the pockets of the middle class would result in more charity and food pantry donations, which would play a role in dismantling the financial excuse for looting. This only begins to scrape the surface of such a complex issue.
Only viewing complex issues through the lenses of one or two pillars of morality makes it very difficult to solve complex issues because it limits the tools at your disposal to properly analyze the issue, pinpoint the multiple root causes, and offer balanced approaches to a set of solutions.