Jonathan Haidt researches ways to understand the way we make moral value judgments, and he's working to use that understanding to help us bridge the conflicts and divisions threatening us. I've just finished reading his 2012 book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion." I want to share a few insights in hopes that you'll be intrigued to read more from him.
Much of our moral thinking is coded into our genetics. People who inherit brains that delight in novelty, variety and pleasure and who tend to be less sensitive to signs of threat are predisposed to grow up to become liberal. People whose brains are alert to potential threat and not so disposed to novelty tend to ripen as conservative. Think of a continuum, not either/or. Life circumstances can influence and change our development, but we come pre-wired to some extent.
Humanity needs both kinds of brains.
Haidt says human beings have "taste buds" for six psychological sensitivities that form our moral values. Liberals tend to focus on three of these moral tastes; conservatives value all six. Much of our conflict and division comes from our holding different core values and misunderstanding each other's perspective.
He describes these six moral foundations in terms of values that we treasure and in terms of their opposite negative triggers. The shared three are:
(1) Care/Harm: All of us intuitively desire to protect our children and the people and things that we love. When triggered by threats that may harm them, compassion motivates us to act in their defense through protective caring and kindness.
(2) Liberty/Oppression: We all desire liberty; we yearn to be free from oppression and oppressors.
(3) Fairness/Cheating: We value reciprocal cooperation that enables trustworthy relationships. Fair-dealing should be rewarded; cheating and deceiving should be restrained.
Liberals and conservatives all embrace these three sets of values. Liberals focus more strongly on the care/harm and liberty/oppression foundations: social justice, compassion for the poor, the struggle for equality, defense of the vulnerable. Conservatives often resent liberal programs that infringe on their liberties or tell them how to run their business and lives under the banner of protecting workers, minorities, consumers and the environment.
Conservatives care more about fairness/cheating and believe in proportionality. Work hard and you earn your rewards. Do the crime, do the time. Liberals will often trade away proportional fairness if it conflicts with compassion or the desire to fight oppression.
The other three sets of moral foundations appeal especially to conservatives.
(4) Loyalty/Betrayal: All humans are descendants of successful tribes who formed coalitions. We value the sacrifice of our loyal team players; we punish traitors or anyone who threatens our group.
(5) Authority/Subversion: Maintaining order and justice requires stable traditions, institutions and values. Respect legitimate authority and rank; hold subversion accountable.
(6) Sanctity/Degradation: The world is complicated and threatening. Some things are noble, pure and elevated; others are base, polluted and degraded. It is a sacred duty to preserve institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community. Protect the sacred; avoid and purge the toxic.
Haidt believes liberals and conservatives are both necessary for healthy political life. Liberals are experts in care. They "see the victims of existing social arrangements, and they continually push to update those arrangements and invent new ones." Social conservatives understand "you don't usually help the bees by destroying the hive."
We all tend to gravitate toward groups that share our values. We create narratives and principle to justify our own group's beliefs.
Haidt says our minds are designed for "groupish righteousness." Shared values bind us to like-minded people. Shared values also blind us. Within the echo chamber of our groups, we often fail to see and hear the values and morality of other temperaments.
Lately I've been reading the letters to the editor with these six "taste buds" in mind. When I find myself triggered by something annoying, I ask myself, "What moral foundation value is motivating this writer?" It's easy to see what they are against, I need to ask, "What are you for? What values are you defending or promoting." I think people are usually right in what they affirm and often wrong in what they deny.
Frequently the people I instinctively disagree with are sensing a threat that I may not recognize yet. Maybe a threat to values and traditions that do help sustain a strong community.
How can we recognize the moral foundation grounding another's belief? If we can slow down, even for two minutes, the flash of reaction can yield to a calmer, reasoned curiosity. We need conservative and liberal minds. Can we listen and help one another?