Purity as Harm?

The area of moral psychology is exploding right now. Lots of this work is being done by Jonathan Haidt from the University of Virginia. You may recall George linking us all to a recent article by Haidt. You can find that piece and a lot more at Haidt’s UV website.

Haidt’s recent work is on moral foundations. Specifically, after considering cross-cultural and anthropological sources Haidt suggests that humans base their moral judgment on five moral criteria. That is, the reasons we offer for something being “wrong”, morally speaking, tend to fall into five distinct areas. According to Haidt these are the five moral foundations:

Harm/Care:
Harming others, failures of care/nurturance, or failures of protection are often cited as reasons for an act being “wrong.” Some virtues from this domain are kindness, caretaking, and compassion.

Fairness/Reciprocity:
Inequalities or failures to reciprocate are often cited as evidence for something being “wrong.” Some virtues here are sharing, egalitarianism, and justice.

Ingroup/Loyalty:
Failure to support, defend, and aid the group is often cited as evidence for “wrongness.” Virtues include loyalty, patriotism, and cooperation.

Authority/Respect:
Failure to grant respect to culturally significant groups, institutions, or authority figures is often cause for sanction. Virtues include respect, duty, and obedience.

Purity/Sanctity:
Anything that demeans, debases, or profanes human or religious dignity or sacredness is also a cause for sanction. Virtues include purity, dignity, and holiness.

The interesting observation Haidt makes about these domains is that conservatives and liberals differ in how they deploy the five moral criteria. Specifically, liberals use only the Harm/Care and the Fairness/Reciprocity foundations. That is, liberals will tend to only cry foul when someone is being harmed or when something is unfair/unjust.

By contrast, conservatives deploy all five foundations when they adjudicate between moral acts. This might make conservatives seem “more” moral, but it is more accurate to say that they have a greater range for moral offense. For example, an act might not lead to harm or injustice (making it fine for the liberal) but it might violate one of the other three domains for the conservative: Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. All this implies that liberals and conservatives will systemically differ in how they feel about morality.

The perfect example is homosexuality. Here is how a liberal sees it:

Question: Is homosexuality a sin?

Harm/Care violation? No harm when the parties are consenting adults.

Fairness/Reciprocity violation? Yes, homosexual couples are being discriminated against.

Ingroup/Loyalty violation? Irrelevant.

Authority/Respect violation? Irrelevant.

Purity/Sanctity violation? Irrelevant.

Conclusion: The only immoral action that is involved with this issue is the unfair treatment of homosexuals.

By contrast, here is how the conservative looks at homosexuality:

Question: Is homosexuality a sin?

Harm/Care violation? No harm when the parties are consenting adults.

Fairness/Reciprocity violation? Yes, homosexual couples are being discriminated against.

Ingroup/Loyalty violation? No.

Authority/Respect violation? Yes. Failure to respect the commands of Scripture and the marriage tradition of Western culture.

Purity/Sanctity violation? Yes. Homosexuality is unnatural.

Conclusion: Although homosexual couples are being treated unfairly this is warranted by the fact that homosexuality is unnatural, sinful, and an undermining of the Western conception of marriage.

The take home point is that liberals and conservatives tend to talk past each other because they are playing by different rules. That is, three of the moral criteria deployed by conservatives are deemed irrelevant by liberals. For liberals the only moral criteria of any worth are harm and justice. The rest is superstition and dysfunctional tradition.

I want to reflect on a few different things.

First, how did this happen? Haidt makes it clear that the liberal focus on harm and justice is a relatively recent phenomenon in the human drama. Specifically, the liberal focus is the product of the Western Enlightenment. Prior to the Enlightenment, and still in most places unaffected by it, all five moral foundations were (or still are) in force. Only after the Enlightenment do we see morality narrowed to issues of harm and injustice.

So, my first question is: Has this development been a good thing? Has the moral movement of the Enlightenment been driven by divine or secular forces?

Although the example of homosexuality complicates things for some, the moral trajectory of the Enlightenment has, in the main, been a very good thing. It has ended slavery and emphasized the human dignity of all persons. Its egalitarian notions have benefited the poor and women. All these developments seem consistent with the gospel message.

But what are we to do with the three other moral foundations? Are they relevant? Should we heed them? Particularly if that foundation is found in the bible?

I’ve actually done some writing on this. In a recent paper of mine, I’ve suggested that one way of reading the moral trajectory of the New Testament is to see purity categories trumped by or folded into harm categories. That is, I’ve argued that purity categories are a form of harm. It is dehumanizing to consider another human being to be a pollutant or contaminant. And when these attributions do emerge we see all sorts of harm following, with genocide as the nadir. Thus, I’ve argued that in Jesus we see purity reconfigured. Specifically, impurity is defined as harming. To harm is to be contaminated. To care/love is to be pure. In this conflation the purity language remains but has been subsumed by the harm criteria. If this argument is accurate then perhaps the moral choices of liberals can be made consistent with Scripture.

I don’t know if this argument is correct. It is all food for thought. Your impressions on Haidt’s work, the liberal/conservative impasse, or my purity-as-harm paper?