Moral disagreement across politics revolves around the key question, “Who is a victim?”
Although some suggest liberals and conservatives have different moral minds, more recent research suggests that all moral judgments revolve around concerns about harm and victimization. Moral disagreement across politics revolves around the key question, “Who is a victim?”
Based on our theoretical framework, we focused on how perceptions of the vulnerability of moral patients (i.e., victims) help us understand moral judgment and political differences. Across twelve studies, we show that moral disagreement is closely tied to differences in who people see as especially vulnerable to harm.
In general, liberals see vulnerability as group-based, dividing the moral world into groups of vulnerable victims and invulnerable oppressors. On the other hand, conservatives view vulnerability as more individual-based, dampening differences in vulnerability between groups and seeing everyone as similarly vulnerable to harm regardless of their social status.
The real moral disagreement among people today is not about who really cares about authority or loyalty—or who invokes these keywords in speeches. Instead, moral disagreements arise from differences in who people perceive as especially vulnerable in society—who seems most vulnerable to victimhood, and who is a legitimate recipient of harm.
These results further support the idea of a universal harm-based mind —one focused on victimhood—while also explaining important moral disagreement. A key reason why the left and right disagree about immigration, abortion, taxes, Black/Blue Lives Matter, environmental reforms, protections for the flag, and affirmative action is because they make different assumptions about who or what is especially vulnerable to victimization.
Although some suggest liberals and conservatives have different moral minds, more recent research suggests that all moral judgments revolve around concerns about harm and victimization. Moral disagreement across politics revolves around the key question, “Who is a victim?”
Based on our theoretical framework, we focused on how perceptions of the vulnerability of moral patients (i.e., victims) help us understand moral judgment and political differences. Across twelve studies, we show that moral disagreement is closely tied to differences in who people see as especially vulnerable to harm.
In general, liberals see vulnerability as group-based, dividing the moral world into groups of vulnerable victims and invulnerable oppressors. On the other hand, conservatives view vulnerability as more individual-based, dampening differences in vulnerability between groups and seeing everyone as similarly vulnerable to harm regardless of their social status.
The real moral disagreement among people today is not about who really cares about authority or loyalty—or who invokes these keywords in speeches. Instead, moral disagreements arise from differences in who people perceive as especially vulnerable in society—who seems most vulnerable to victimhood, and who is a legitimate recipient of harm.
These results further support the idea of a universal harm-based mind —one focused on victimhood—while also explaining important moral disagreement. A key reason why the left and right disagree about immigration, abortion, taxes, Black/Blue Lives Matter, environmental reforms, protections for the flag, and affirmative action is because they make different assumptions about who or what is especially vulnerable to victimization.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
