A Subtle Introduction to Haidt, Part II

A deeper dive into Moral Foundations and their origins.

This is Principled Bicycling, a Substack discussing and exploring the various issues surrounding the bicycling advocacy rabbit hole with occasional tangents into semi-related topics such as energy, monetary policy, and skepticism of many cherished institutions. Tin foil helmets are optional.

---

In the last post, I introduced two key concepts from social psychologist Jonathon Haidt* , the Rider/Elephant metaphor to explain the human brain’s difference in processing intuitions first and strategic reasoning second followed by moral tastebuds which is formally called Moral Foundations Theory. Then I took a stab at defining my two visions of bicycling advocacy; the principle-driven vision and the platitude-driven vision. To be honest, the visions are a bit of a work in progress but what’s not? Haidt, et al’s original work on Moral Foundations Theory initially only identified five moral axes (or taste buds) not six. The sixth one, Liberty/Oppression came later.

We’re going to expand a bit on each axis, and to stick to consistency from here on out, these are actually formally called Moral Foundations but feel free to interchange axes or moral taste buds if you see fit.

Recall the six are:

• Care/Harm

• Fairness/Cheating

• Loyalty/Betrayal

• Authority/Subversion

• Sanctity/Segregation

• Liberty/Oppression

Note: Chapter 7 of the Righteous Mind, where five of the six Moral Foundations are discussed in detail is available for free from the author’s website. Below is my attempt to condense that 21 page chapter plus parts of the next chapter into something digestible here.

An entire book summary, recommended by Haidt himself, is also available here.

Humans are mammals, in other words animals whose females give birth to live young after the process of sexual reproduction. (That should be an obvious statement but we live in Clown World today where basic biology is in chronic denial by large swaths of society.) Humans have a long development span and must remain close to the mother (or a surrogate) for the first several years of their lives otherwise they will not survive. This is likely the evolutionary purpose of the Care/Harm foundation. Humans need emotional triggers to notify them when their offspring need help, protection, or comforting. This foundation is also triggered when we see photos or videos of cute animals or other adorable imagery (especially if they’re suffering or appear helpless) in other words it extends for many people beyond their own offspring and close human connections. The primary emotion exhibited is empathy and virtues may include sympathy, generosity, and nurturance.

Humans are also social creatures, we’re required to cooperate with our fellow humans for mutual benefit BUT we don’t want to work with others who do not reciprocate evenly or cheat. This is where Fairness/Cheating applies. Even toddlers and young children grasp this concept and begin to incorporate it early in play with others. As adults, we look for our romantic partners and friends to be faithful and expect those who steal property to be held accountable for an unequal deal. From here come the conceptions of justice and rights and who gets them via proportionality. When someone feels cheated, they often exhibit frustration and when they feel not cheated, they typically exhibit glee and thankfulness.

But humans are not just social creatures, but we’re also inherently tribal. We like to form alliances and coalitions and battle against those who are not in our own groups. Here is where the Loyalty/Betrayal foundation comes in. Some people move in and out of these groups and such actions are often seen as a social taboo. Pride for in-group members and anger based on betrayal are two of the emotions triggered by this foundation. Allegiance to one’s group or tribe is a key virtue. These tribal affiliations have a history of being notoriously harmful especially when they based on something such as race or nationality as the dividing line. But there are also far more innocent “tribes”- sports teams and their fanbase are an excellent example of the Loyalty/Betrayal foundation as are “tech teams” such as Mac versus PC or iPhone versus Android, “car-teams” such as Ford verses Chevy.

Furthermore, our species also relies on hierarchy as part of our complex web of social interactions to the chagrin of specific philosophers. We have leaders, followers, authorities, and submittal to authority figures or leaders. This is the base for the Authority/Subversion foundation. People can move up and down these hierarchies for reasons agreed upon by the group and for reasons not agreed upon. In modern times, this plays out in the workplace as employees respect superiors. Politicians, Military, and law enforcement are often given their own place on these trees as are doctors, lawyers and academics. In religions, there is authority in a higher power or supreme being(s). It’s also embedded in language - consider tuteo/voseo versus usted in Spanish and other Romance languages, the layers of honorifics in Japanese, and even just Misses and Mister in English. Haidt makes note in his book not to confuse authority with power, as the former typically requires those in authority to be responsible for their role in maintaining order.

There are plenty of things that trigger disgust and contamination. Enter Sanctity/Degradation. For one example, feces or decaying flesh emit an odor that’s unappealing and unpalatable which signals to humans that it isn’t safe to eat due to the presence of harmful pathogens. Humans evolved to be omnivores which meant they needed to consume either freshly killed (some types of) flesh or flesh cooked to an appropriate temperature. This also applies to what Haidt calls the “behavioral immune system” which extends beyond pathogens or parasites and may include more symbolic items viewed as “threats.” This is highly dependent upon the culture and politics and this is where the idea of something “untouchable” comes from which can be viewed as both a bad thing (staying away from something, or someone “polluted”) and a good thing (something that needs to be protected due to its sacredness). Consider flags, crosses, battle sites (Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor), religious centers (Mecca), saints, heroes, founders of nations or monarchies. Violations are often met with swift punishment and even banishment from the group. On the social conservative right you have chastity (purity rings, virginity pledges, etc), and on the left there’s the desire to avoid “toxins” in the body often including things such as GMOs or animal products in food. Sanctity/Degradation also ties heavily into the modern environmental movement with the which often view mother nature, or Gaia, as a sacred entity which humans have exploited or destroyed via industrialization and Capitalism.

The final moral foundation is Liberty/Oppression and it was originally not included in the original research yet was added after much feedback (that science thing again). Haidt also contacted primate researchers and learned early humans were fairly egalitarian (similar to the Noble Savage fallacy) back in the low population hunter-gatherer days but as with other primate species, alpha members, usually males, would rise up within the hierarchy acting as bullies or dominators and this foundation developed to keep them in check. Later when language and weaponry arrived, it was easier to keep these individuals either in check with gossip or with violence. People also banded together to gang up on suspecting abusers of power. This foundation triggers egalitarianism for some, anti-authoritarianism for others, as well as the infamous “don’t tread on me” attitude for the most based of the based.

My work-in-progress thesis here is that the difference between the platitude vision and the principled vision leans heavily on which moral foundations subscribers to each vision rely on. An individual’s reliance on certain moral foundations over others isn’t anything groundbreaking - it’s in fact a huge part of Haidt’s book. The equal reliance on all moral foundations is what he discovered actually describes bonafide Conservatives. Leftists, who took the original word “liberal,” often rely heavily on only the care/harm and liberty/oppression matrices and somewhat on fairness/cheating nearly at the expense of the others. Libertarians often hyperfocus on only liberty/oppression over the others. The other kicker is that each group has differing thoughts and definitions on the specifics of the moral foundations they share.

Or more visually:

---

*Tangent: Haidt just released an excellent piece in The Atlantic entitled Yes, Social Media Really is Undermining Democracy. Personally I have an allergy to “X undermines Democracy” titles as it seems like everything someone doesn’t like these days is said to undermine Democracy but I digress, it’s a good read as is most of Haidt’s work. His piece touches on some themes that I really do think contribute in some ways to a topic I touched very lightly on in What Happened to the Old Guard and the Bazaar of Cycling Advocacy in particular that the quality of internet discourse has diminished greatly since social media sites took over, that this has led to a Dark Age in cycling advocacy related content online, and I hope to argue in a continuation of the Dark Age series that this is NOT a good thing for current or prospective cyclists or the advocacy space in general.