Moral Foundation Theory

In his book, The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt explains the huge differences between the attitudes of most (truly) moral people. Explaining the Moral Foundation Theory, he says there are 6 different axis of morality:
-         Care/harm
-         Fairness/cheating
-         Loyalty/betrayal
-         Authority/subversion
-         Sanctity/degradation
-         Liberty/oppression
The reason why moral people hold such different opinions is two-fold:
-         The ideals (axis) often clash. Take Care/harm: most moral people would consider themselves to be on the Care side of the spectrum. But how far should we go in caring? That’s when it starts to clash with the Fairness/cheating axis: to many, fairness means people should earn things based on merit, not get free handouts. Truly moral people (on both sides) have a different answer to the question: should caring trump merit? If yes, to what extent?
-         The other point is that many people give zero weightage to certain axis. Thus, conservative people give high weightage to the Sanctity/degradation axis whereas liberal people give almost none.

Set aside the politicians and high priests when you go over this paragraph. Instead answer these questions from the perspective of genuinely moral people. Does the theory explain why so many (genuinely) moral people oppose the Uniform Civil Code? Even though all religions are oppressive to women? Even though those very people do support gender equality? Is it because (for them), Sanctity (of religion) trumps Fairness (for genders)?

The more I think of the above theory, the more it seems to explain the huge differences between truly moral people. No, please leave aside the founders of religions or gurus or saints because you can’t get them together to debate a controversial/grey topic. Focus instead on the genuinely moral common man who has to apply his take on morality in real life, in day to day topics. What do you feel: does the theory explain the differences in opinions?

Comments

  1. Ramiah KumarNovember 7, 2016 at 12:27 PM

    The word 'morality' has greater Christian connotation than the Hindu's 'dharma' connotation. That is not much of a point because most Hindus' mindset is the same of a faithful Christian mindset, is so far as how to take up or view morality. In that sense, the blog's point of view does have some universal validity.

    Though you have given a little special consideration to prophets (whom you termed founders of religions), saints and also gurus, there is a sort of conclusive remark on that through "you can’t get them together to debate a controversial/grey topic". True in a way, but since there is forever flux in individual and social settings with Time continuously altering our environment and relations, it would be meaningless to imagine a conference attended by Vyasa, Moses, Abraham, the Buddha, Confucius, Jesus, Mohammad and a host of others to resolve the morality dilemma! Each belonged to different backgrounds in time and region.

    The great difficulty is that as much as the doctrines of sciences are subject to change (say, evolution of ideas and knowledge) morality is also not a stagnant thing but something that should change with time and within that sometimes with region too, since variations due to background is inevitable. However, this is a very elusive issue in religion, even though the truth is acknowledged by prophets and saints. None of them could organize along the lines of Western organizations to resolve morality! It would be wrong, indeed fatal, too.

    In reality, the word "dharma' implies two things: (i) its application is relative with respect to time, social group as well as individual hence one needs to accept flexibility (ii) there can never be any absolute sanction through any authority of one being "right" or "wrong". Intent and evaluation of the specific context play a crucial role in that, but without compromising on the core morality - 'aiming for selflessness'. In Hindu and Buddhist philosophies 'dharma', while important, is also considered obstruction to liberation strangely, because mind can bind one to trivial or incorrect ideas, particularly because of clinging to the feeling "I am doing right" while being ignorant of the terrible egotism that evokes righteousness. Enlightenment transcends morality, even if this looks weird. It is weird but it is true!

    On the whole morality is a tricky subject. It will forever remain in the domain of debates! :-(

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Chess is too Boring

“Chess has problems at the grandmaster level...They're not getting a great game”, wrote Christian Donlan . Amen to that: Anand and his challenger, Magnus Carlsen drew their first game in just 16 moves. It gets worse: games between the top 20 end in draws 60% of the time. And Donlan adds that “games often end in resignation when an actual victory starts to loom on the distant horizon.” That often means that the average player (or fan) often has no clue why one guy won (since he can’t see that far ahead)! Then there’s all that memorization (of openings, of end games and everything in between). All that memorization is sort of against the spirit of the game, says Zachary Burns, “We want it to be a game of creativity and positional play.” Many have tried to change the rules of the game in the past for these exact reasons, including Bobby Fischer with his Chess960 variant. More recently, David Sirlin tried to make things interesting via his variant, Chess 2. So what are his c...
Read more