We Have Different Moral Frameworks

In his book The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt presents his claim that each individual’s moral framework is composed of multiple axes. In addition to this, he also says that morality is not a rational process; it is intuitive. We feel intuitively whether something is moral or immoral and use reason to justify our feelings afterward. In the context of Daniel Kahneman, as we have discussed before, morality is a System 1 process, which we then justify using System 2 thinking after the fact.

Haidt identifies six axes on which morality operates. He goes on to explain that people from different perspectives apply these axes differently. The six axes are:

1. Care - Harm

2. Fairness - Cheating

3. Loyalty - Betrayal

4. Authority - Subversion

5. Sanctity - Degradation

6. Liberty - Oppression

Through his research, Haidt identified that people on the left wing of the political spectrum judge morality primarily on the care and fairness spectrums. For someone toward the center, they operate in all six but find care and fairness most important. The further one moves toward the extreme on the political spectrum, the less aware they are of the other axes and the more they see the world through a lens of only care and fairness.

Haidt says that conservatives operate more on a balance of all six axes. That may be true for those closer to the center, but again, the further toward the extreme one goes, the less awareness they have of the care and fairness axes, and the more they operate from the others. This is clear from the primary example of the pathologizing of the right perspective. Nazi Germany prized Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity, with little concern for Care or Fairness for those who were not part of the in-group.

As both parties have progressed down the path to becoming totalizing frameworks, as we discussed last time, they not only lose awareness of the moral axes of the other perspective, they actively perceive them as immoral. The far left looks at authority and sees authoritarianism. They look at loyalty and see tribalism. They look at sanctity and see arbitrary taboo.

The moral framework of the right is known as a binding framework. The far left looks at this and sees fascism.

There is a mirror image on the right. The far right looks at care and sees weakness. They look at fairness and see envy-driven redistribution. The moral framework of the left is known as the individualizing framework. The far right sees it as communism.

The names given to the frameworks are interesting. They are the opposite of what it seems like each side is focused on.

What occurred to me after thinking about this is that this is what each foundation actually prioritizes. The reason it seems odd is because we identify each foundation by what it focuses on. What each foundation focuses on is what it lacks.

This led me to an even more interesting realization. Because each foundation has little moral awareness of the other moral foundation, the solution it produces for its deficiency (socialism for the left and rugged individualism for the right) fails to actually fill that deficiency because it lacks an understanding of what produces what it is missing.

The community that is produced by the binding foundation requires care and fairness for a fully functional society. The individualizing foundation requires the community produced by the binding foundation for individuals to flourish.

The realization here is that we need to understand and integrate what the other side has to offer if we hope to achieve the society we want, on both sides. We need each other.