Juggling Moral Considerations

Religion can do that, ideology can’t

I’ve been talking to women I know about polyticks. [Just women for now.] One of my observations is that my liberal friends have a deeply held confidence that politicians have their - and everyone’s - best interests at heart.

Of course, that doesn’t include Republican politicians.

However, I’ve also seen this among conservatives, where any criticism of DT or JDV is met with anger.

To me, this faith in the goodness of one political side versus the other feels… religious.

One of my readers, [Diana Compton] mentioned Pascal’s God-shaped hole.

“What else does this craving, and this helplessness, proclaim but that there was once in man a true happiness, of which all that now remains is the empty print and trace?

This he tries in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in things that are not there the help he cannot find in those that are, though none can help, since this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself”

Blaise Pascal’s Pensees

As it happens, we are built [evolved? designed?] to experience the presence of god. In Western culture, ‘god’ is typically thought of as Yahweh or Jesus. However, I think this framing isn’t useful except on a personal level. Religion is a common human experience and one that all successful cultures share. I am not at this time critiquing one versus the other, [I have opinions!] only pointing out that religion is something humans have in common.

When I say we are built to experience something greater than ourselves I mean both the architecture of our brains,* and our evolved [yes, they are evolved not arbitrarily chosen] moral considerations. While I write about my personal understanding of biology and evolution, I am a religious person. I have deep faith. Not in what a religious leader or a book has told me, but that ‘the something greater’ - however you personally define and work with that - has inherent structure and meaning, that that is discoverable if we listen deeply. Even if we don’t find that meaning, that’s because they have our best interests as a part of their being. Not just ours, but all of existence.

That’s a lot bigger than polyticks.

In life, there are multiple moral considerations. For example, the urge to be caring must be balanced against the need to defend one’s person and family. Loyalty to the group must be balanced against legitimate authority, and legitimate authority must be balanced against what’s fair.

In his book, The Righteous Mind [reviewed here] Dr. Jonathan Haidt describes his study of the evolved foundations of our morality and how that applies to liberals and conservatives. His theory is that our morality is like a tongue with six taste receptors. If we want to enjoy a good meal, then we need to be engaging all of them. A restaurant that catered to only one of these receptors [sweetness, saltiness, etc] would quickly go out of business.

His six moral foundations have been examined by his team, both globally and among different classes and the work is ongoing. In the early 2000s, he decided to apply these studies to liberals versus conservatives. While he had originally been studying 5 foundations, his work within the context of political views made him realize he needed to add a sixth. His original five were:

• Care/harm

• Fairness/cheating

• Loyalty/betrayal

• Authority/subversion

• Purity/degradation

• The most recent is Liberty/oppression

In examining how liberals versus conservatives dealt with moral choices, he found something that shocked him and moved him away from his progressive political stance toward the center.

Liberals use only two of the moral foundations: care/harm and fairness/cheating. Conservatives use all six.