Understanding Political Divides Through Morals

The political divide which our country faces today is divisive and deeply cut. Differences between political groups that were once subject to discussion and debate have become objects of personal pride, and are fiercely adhered to and defended, often regardless of the other side’s argument. There have been countless hypotheses about why this divide has occurred, but perhaps one of the best theories comes from social psychologist Dr. Jonathan Haidt. Haidt’s thesis revolves around the different moral framework that is ingrained in every human being across the planet, and because of this, understanding Haidt’s theories is key to understanding this political divide, and the differences that are present in cultures and ideologies across the globe.

Haidt centers his argument on the idea that there are five foundations of morality. These foundations are deeply ingrained in our psychology, as a sort of ‘first draft of the moral mind,’ which we are born with and develop throughout our lives. The five foundations are as follows (paraphrased from TED talk):

1. Harm/Care  - Perhaps the most basic and universal of all of the foundations, this is the aspect of ourselves that reacts when we see harm being done to others, and drives us to take care of those in need, who may not be able to take care of themselves.
2. Fairness/Reciprocity - The idea that things should be equal and fair for ourselves and others in the world, and reciprocal, as evidenced by the numerous ideas of ‘the golden rule’ in religions and older civilizations around the world.
3. In-group/Loyalty - The tendency to form groups and place value in being loyal to these groups. Notable in humans, as we are one of the only species on the planet to form groups that are so large so successfully, and routinely pit our own groups against others.
4. Authority/Respect - Placing value in respecting those who prove themselves to be stronger. This trait is often more complicated in humans, as it is determined by such a large variety of factors, such as social, political, financial, etc - not purely based on strength.
5. Purity/Sanctity - The idea of being able to attain virtue or better health by controlling/limiting what you do with your body.

These foundations are significant for a number of reasons, but perhaps the most important is how universally present they are across the globe. Every single country surveyed found these to be the most reliably present moral categories of the inhabitants of that country. More interestingly, these traits also directly correspond with political affiliation, as illustrated from a survey done in the US.

From this chart, we can clearly see a moral divide is present between political parties. There is simply less emphasis put on the bottom three categories of authority, in-group and purity for people who hold liberal beliefs. As you go across the spectrum, the endorsement for these factors increases, while it simultaneously decreases for the other two, until you reach the conservative side of the spectrum, where the three lowest ranked for liberal people have become equally important as the two highest. However, harm and fairness are universally agreed upon as morally valid; the disagreement stems from moral differences on authority, in-group, and purity. After looking at this chart, it becomes clear that many of the most divisive and contentious issues in politics today stem from moral disagreements.

When more closely examined, this theory becomes perhaps some of the clearest and most logical evidence for why the political divide today is so deeply cut. Both sides create problems because of their ideologies regarding the other. For example, the idea that we are more ‘open’ than our conservative counterparts is, in a way counterproductive; because we view ourselves this way, we immediately assume those who disagree with us are less virtuous, when in reality, they place value in different moral ideals which to them, are equally, if not more valid than our own. Both side’s insistence that they are the ones who hold the morally ‘correct’ views only serves to further alienate one another. While it may be true that we are more open, to the other side this isn’t necessarily a good thing. We have to understand that this is a divide that cannot be so simply reduced to right and wrong, and must be more deeply examined and understood if we are to make progress towards unity. “Liberals speak for the weak and oppressed; they want change and justice, even at the risk of chaos,” while “Conservatives speak for institutions and traditions; they want order, even at some cost to those at the bottom” (Haidt). These are distinctly different philosophies, but they each lend themselves to a larger whole. To write either of them off as wrong and improper is to invalidate centuries of history, philosophy and the morals and ideals of our fellow citizens, which is sure only to breed more contempt and worsen the situation.

Sheraton, Lawrence. "Conservatives VS. Liberals." Ethics Defined. N.p., 20 Jan. 2017. Web. 17 Dec. 2018. <http://www.ethicsdefined.org/the-problem-with-morality/conservatives-vs-liberals/>.

Dr. Jonathan Haidt, (2008, March) The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind?language=en#t-236106