Comments on: What are the basic foundations of morality? http://www.polipsych.com/2009/11/13/what-are-the-basic-foundations-of-morality/ Exploring Political Attitudes Through Moral Psychology Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:11:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Ravi http://www.polipsych.com/2009/11/13/what-are-the-basic-foundations-of-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-157 Ravi Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:37:54 +0000 http://www.polipsych.com/2009/11/13/what-are-the-basic-foundations-of-morality/#comment-157 re #1: That's very interesting. Thanks for the information as I've been struggling how to frame research that some ultra-competitive isolated tribes don't have innate fairness concerns (as measured by the ultimatum game), but they can develop fairness. That makes sense to me and I'll likely quote you. re #2: I agree that it's the psychological system rather than the concept that matters....but I would say that sensitivity to psychological harm and physical harm evoke the same systems (empathy, caring). I believe there is neuroscience research and research on "social pain" that gives evidence for this. If you believe that psychological pain and physical pain are related, then self determination theory gives an interesting way to frame psychological pain. If competence, relatedness, and autonomy are basic psychological needs, then one can hurt people psychologically by making them feel worthless/incompetent/low self-esteem (procedural justice is often about this), isolated, or controlling them/taking away liberty. I can't definitively say that these all touch on the same psychological systems, but this is how I would go about framing my hypothesis, that it all boils down to harm, be it psychological or physical. It would be interesting to design studies to test this. I'm not sure what that study would look like...some kind of discriminative validity test of various kinds of harm. Ravi re #1: That’s very interesting. Thanks for the information as I’ve
been struggling how to frame research that some ultra-competitive
isolated tribes don’t have innate fairness concerns (as measured by
the ultimatum game), but they can develop fairness. That makes sense
to me and I’ll likely quote you.

re #2: I agree that it’s the psychological system rather than the
concept that matters….but I would say that sensitivity to
psychological harm and physical harm evoke the same systems (empathy,
caring). I believe there is neuroscience research and research on
“social pain” that gives evidence for this. If you believe that
psychological pain and physical pain are related, then self
determination theory gives an interesting way to frame psychological
pain. If competence, relatedness, and autonomy are basic
psychological needs, then one can hurt people psychologically by
making them feel worthless/incompetent/low self-esteem (procedural
justice is often about this), isolated, or controlling them/taking
away liberty. I can’t definitively say that these all touch on the
same psychological systems, but this is how I would go about framing
my hypothesis, that it all boils down to harm, be it psychological or
physical. It would be interesting to design studies to test this.
I’m not sure what that study would look like…some kind of
discriminative validity test of various kinds of harm.

Ravi

]]> By: Jon Haidt http://www.polipsych.com/2009/11/13/what-are-the-basic-foundations-of-morality/comment-page-1/#comment-156 Jon Haidt Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:34:08 +0000 http://www.polipsych.com/2009/11/13/what-are-the-basic-foundations-of-morality/#comment-156 Ravi, I think this is extremely helpful, particularly about what it takes to be a foundation. There is no one necessary or sufficient feature. I agree that we have to think through some lumping and some splitting, and I suspect that honesty/trustworthiness might survive all tests. My only suggestions for changes to what you wrote would be: 1)For a psychological trait to be innate and a product of natural selection, it does NOT have to be universal, for two reasons: First, its now clear that evolution is 10-100 times faster than we thought 10 years ago, so if a hunter gatherer group in the amazon doesn’t show a particular trait, it is quite possible that they lost it in the last 20,000 years, or that other groups evolved it after the diaspora from Africa. Second, all that needs to be universal is the potential, not the expressed phenotype. So if most cultures show purity and pollution concerns, in very similar ways, but modern secular cultures generally show very little, it doesn’t mean there’s not an innate foundation; it just means that not all cultures build on the foundation. 2)I don’t think so much should be placed on the harm foundation. Harm doesn’t refer to the conceptual definition of harm, including any kind of loss; it refers to our particular psychological responsiveness to pain and physical suffering, which is likely to be related to our attachment systems and our nature as mammals (child-raisers). So physical suffering, cruelty, pain, caring, succorance…. This is the core. One could describe loss of liberty as a harm, or one could describe being placed in an unequal position as a harm, but I don’t think either of these grow out of our attachment systems. I think they both grow out of the dynamic that Chris Boehm describes in “Hierarchy in the Forest”: it’s about political maneuvering and the constant vigilance against despots, bullies, and those who violate egalitarian expectations. I think egalitarianism and authoritarianism are related, at least as opposing systems. I don’t think either one grows out of our attachment systems and sensitivity to physical suffering. Ravi,
I think this is extremely helpful, particularly about what it takes to be a foundation. There is no one necessary or sufficient feature. I agree that we have to think through some lumping and some splitting, and I suspect that honesty/trustworthiness might survive all tests. My only suggestions for changes to what you wrote would be:

1)For a psychological trait to be innate and a product of natural selection, it does NOT have to be universal, for two reasons: First, its now clear that evolution is 10-100 times faster than we thought 10 years ago, so if a hunter gatherer group in the amazon doesn’t show a particular trait, it is quite possible that they lost it in the last 20,000 years, or that other groups evolved it after the diaspora from Africa. Second, all that needs to be universal is the potential, not the expressed phenotype. So if most cultures show purity and pollution concerns, in very similar ways, but modern secular cultures generally show very little, it doesn’t mean there’s not an innate foundation; it just means that not all cultures build on the foundation.

2)I don’t think so much should be placed on the harm foundation. Harm doesn’t refer to the conceptual definition of harm, including any kind of loss; it refers to our particular psychological responsiveness to pain and physical suffering, which is likely to be related to our attachment systems and our nature as mammals (child-raisers). So physical suffering, cruelty, pain, caring, succorance…. This is the core. One could describe loss of liberty as a harm, or one could describe being placed in an unequal position as a harm, but I don’t think either of these grow out of our attachment systems. I think they both grow out of the dynamic that Chris Boehm describes in “Hierarchy in the Forest”: it’s about political maneuvering and the constant vigilance against despots, bullies, and those who violate egalitarian expectations. I think egalitarianism and authoritarianism are related, at least as opposing systems. I don’t think either one grows out of our attachment systems and sensitivity to physical suffering.

]]>