What is Moral Foundations Theory?
Moral Foundations Theory was created by a group of social and cultural psychologists to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that several innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The five foundations for which we think the evidence is best are:
1) Care/harm: This foundation is related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulated the theory in 2011 based on new data, we emphasize proportionality, which is endorsed by everyone, but is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]
3) Loyalty/betrayal: This foundation is related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one."
4) Authority/subversion: This foundation was shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5) Sanctity/degradation: This foundation was shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
1 and 2 are individualizing foundations--the source of the intuition that make the liberal philosophical tradition, with its emphasis on the rights and welfare of individuals, so learnable and so compelling to so many people. 3-5 are bindingfoundations--the source of the intuitions that make many conservative and religious moralities, with their emphasis on group-binding loyalty, duty, and self-control, so learnable and compelling to so many people.
We think there are several other very good candidates for "foundationhood," especially:
6) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. Its intuitions are often in tension with those of the authority foundation. The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor. We report some preliminary work on this potential foundation in this paper, on the psychology of libertarianism and liberty.
Much of our present research involves applying the theory to political "cultures" such as those of liberals and conservatives. The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying primarily on the Care/harm foundation, with additional support from the Fairness/cheating and Liberty/oppression foundations. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all six foundations, including Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation. The culture war in the 1990s and early 2000s centered on the legitimacy of these latter three foundations. In 2009, with the rise of the Tea Party, the culture war shifted away from social issues such as abortion and homosexuality, and became more about differing conceptions of fairness (equality vs. proportionality) and liberty (is government the oppressor or defender?). The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are both populist movements that talk a great deal about fairness and liberty, but in very different ways.
The theory was first developed from a simultaneous review of current evolutionary thinking about morality and cross-cultural research on virtues (reported in Haidt & Joseph). The theory is an extension of Richard Shweder's theory of the "three ethics" commonly used around the world when people talk about morality. (The "big three" of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the "big three" explanations of suffering.) The theory was also strongly influenced by Alan Fiske's relational models theory.
How can Moral Foundations Theory inform advocacy?
- Clarifies our own pre-rational, moral intuitions; helps us to identify biases that may cause blind spots in our own thinking.
- Enables us to better understand the underlying moral motivations of those we're tasked with convincing.
- Our advocacy will be more effective if we can frame our discourse in the moral language of our likeliest opposition.
Assignment: Applying Moral Foundations Theory to the AP
- Which of the five moral foundations identified by Haidt best explain how you have chosen to frame your problem? Why? Do they fall into the category of individualizing or binding foundations?
- Which of the five moral foundations identified by Haidt best explain how you have chosen to frame your solution? Why?
- List keywords associated with your identified foundations. Find at least one example from your sources where an advocate or scholar employs moral language associated with your identified foundations. Provide a quotation from your source and explain the moral function of the language.
- Which of the five moral foundations identified by Haidt best explain your primary opposition's reasons for rejecting your framing of the problem and/or your chosen solution? Why? Do they fall into the category of individualizing or binding foundations.
- List keywords associated with your opposition's moral foundations. Find at least one example from your sources where an advocate or scholar employs moral language associated with your opposition's moral foundations. Provide a quotation from your source and explain the moral function of the language.
- Do your best to frame your problem in the moral language of your opposition. What shared values might you appeal to? If your motivating moral foundations are individualizing, address how the problem affects the concerns of those whose foundations are binding (or vice versa).
- Now frame your solution in the moral language of your opposition. Consider whether adopting the moral language of your opposition required you to make compromises. How do you determine when a compromise is acceptable?
 The following is adapted from http://www.moralfoundations.org, which chronicles the work of Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, and others. I have also included material from "Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations," by Haidt, Graham, and Nosek (2009).