Cody Meyer

PSYC 288 – Eagan

Application Paper 1 – Option #2

Growing up, my family jokingly called my grandmother “Swiss Miss,” a cheap reference

to the typically neutral stance of Switzerland in regard to war. She earned this tongue-in-cheek

moniker because she was forever the peacekeeper of the family. My grandmother disliked

conflict so much that we often heard her citing the old adage “two things you should never

discuss: religion and politics.” Her strategy was pretty effective at keeping shouting to a

minimum at family events, but it stifled those of us who wanted to grow and stretch our moral

wings. As I grew up, I discovered that many people are like my grandmother: they cannot stand

the abrasive nature of moral discrepancies. But why do such discrepancies exist, and why do

they pervade (at least on some level) most cultures around the world? Moral psychologist

Jonathan Haidt has devoted years of professional work to answering just these questions. In this

paper, I will discuss Haidt’s theories regarding moral foundations and discuss how these theories

apply to a personally salient issue, same-sex marriage.

In his research, Jonathan Haidt set out to understand why people come to such opposite

conclusions regarding moral issues and how those conclusions tend to place us into political

categories like liberal or conservative. After extensive review and research, Haidt and his

associates compiled a set of five distinct values that help categorize humans into political

categories. The first value, care/harm, describes the tendency of humans to care for and protect

others. The second value, fairness/equality, is the tendency of humans to seek justice within the

context of agreed-upon rules and norms. The third value, loyalty, is the tendency of some

humans to favor cohesive groups as a strategy for survival and morality. The fourth value,

authority/respect, is the tendency of some humans to legitimize authority figures and submit to
traditional practices and values. The fifth and final value, sanctity/purity, describes a distaste for

disgusting things and actions. This principle also focuses on the treatment of the body as a sacred

entity. This is often necessarily tied into traditional religious values. While there is some benefit

to examining these values in and of themselves, a far more valuable phenomenon can be

observed if one compares how individuals of varying political orientation regard each of these

values.

Haidt describes these values as profoundly important to an understanding of politics.

According to Haidt, conservatives highly value each of these five vectors of morality. Liberals,

on the other hand, typically only value the first two: care/harm and fairness/equality. While

liberals and conservatives both tend to favor these two values, they disagree on what these terms

mean in practice. This accounts for why there is so much disagreement between the two ends of

the spectrum. The example I will use to put this theory into context is that of same-sex marriage.

Traditionally, liberals have supported the legalization of same-sex marriage while conservatives

have opposed it. While same-sex marriage was legalized in the United States in 2015, there are

still many conservatives who believe that the Supreme Court’s decision was immoral or, at least,

unjustified. It is my firm belief that any two consenting adults should be allowed to be joined in

marriage, regardless of arbitrary factors like sex, gender, race, etc. It is my goal to describe,

using Haidt’s moral framework, how moral foundations guide the views of people who both

agree and disagree with my position.

For most liberals, picking a side on an issue like same-sex marriage is fairly simple.

Marriage (and similar unions between people) have historically provided incredible benefits for

those involved. A healthy marriage provides companionship, increased safety and stability, and

helps us satisfy some of our most basic needs. Given that liberals almost exclusively utilize the
values of care and equality in moral decision-making, it is easy to understand why most liberals

favor the legalization of same-sex marriage. Besides the aforementioned aspects of marriage that

allow us to provide better care for ourselves, an adherence to the principle of equality compels

most liberals to promote equal access to marriage to all people. Again, it is the succinctness of

these two principles that makes this conclusion so intuitive for liberals.

Conservatives, in contrast, utilize all five moral values in arriving at conclusions

regarding access to legal marriage for same-sex couples. It is an incredibly well-known fact (or

perception, at least) in the United States that conservatives tend to oppose same-sex marriage. In

noticing that liberals and conservatives share the first two moral values, one might wonder how

conservatives arrive at a completely different decision than their liberal counterparts. The answer

is complex. For one thing, conservatives do not approach the fairness/equality principle in the

same way as liberals. While liberals discuss fairness in terms of justice and autonomy,

conservatives tend to focus on proportionality. Second, conservatives have three more moral

values to consider: loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The in-grouping concept of loyalty is an

evolutionary leftover from times when humans relied on tribes to survive. Individuals who stick

with the group are more likely to survive and strengthen the tribe, while individuals who stray

from tribal norms are considered a threat to the group as a whole. Given that marriage is a

tradition rooted in heterosexuality, same-sex marriages challenge the norm. To many

conservatives, this is considered a threat to group safety. Authority is an incredibly compelling

value for many conservatives. Rooted in social dominance hierarchies, this principle values

submission to legitimate authority and, again, traditional values. In the pre-2000 United States,

the vast majority of authority figures have been profoundly anti-same-sex marriage. The final

moral foundation considered by most conservatives is sanctity. This principle is more complex
than the other values because of its roots in religion. While the reasoning varies from religion to

religion, it is nearly ubiquitous for religious groups to oppose same-sex marriage. This principle

is typically informed by intuitions like disgust and fear of contamination. Since many religions

view same-sex relationships as inherently disgusting and/or unclean, it makes sense as to why

religious conservatives would oppose same-sex marriage. These combined moral foundations

provide a rich, complex set of considerations for a conservative mind to process. This probably

accounts for why liberals tend to arrive at attitudes regarding same-sex marriage so easily and

conservatives have a much broader range of views and justifications.

Social psychology, by nature of being related to humans, is complex. There is no

framework that can succinctly predict or describe why and how individuals think the way they

do. Haidt’s theories do, however, provide us with tools to better understand these differences and

assist us in relating to each other. I am certain that my grandmother, the Swiss Miss, had the best

intentions by tacitly keeping the peace, but I think she could have benefited from a bit of Haidt’s

expertise. Everyone thinks they are right, but we often fail to consider that the other side is pretty

certain they are right, too. Perhaps through a better understanding of some fundamental

differences between ourselves and our political opposites, we can reach a better understanding of

how such similar people reach such different conclusions.