Daniel Rose: The Pastor Next Door

Why do we respond to things the way we do? How do we experience the world? Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist, argues that we possess six “taste receptors” that shape how we perceive the world around us¹. These six foundations, and the varying degrees to which we experience each, influence our understanding.

Our moral taste receptors include: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation, and Liberty/Oppression. Haidt posits that all of these operate within our minds, driving our emotional intuitions as we process the world. They function similarly to taste buds, but for our emotions.

Consider this: some people love the taste of cilantro, while others find it soapy and disgusting. The taste receptors on their tongues provide drastically different feedback for the same herb. Moral taste receptors function in a similar way. While all are present, each of us will have different ones that are more dominant. These foundations develop from adaptive challenges that must be overcome. Consequently, there are triggers that evolve from original to current contexts, characteristic emotions associated with each, and virtues that develop as a result. (NOTE: I won’t reiterate the studies and depth Haidt explores in his book. If this topic intrigues you, I encourage you to read The Righteous Mind.)

Let’s explore the Care/Harm foundation. Each moral foundation has an “adaptive challenge” that contributed to its development in our perception of the world. This first foundation is rooted in the need to care for and protect children. Unlike many other species, mammalian and particularly human offspring are helpless at birth, unable to fend for themselves for several years. Therefore, we developed a moral foundation centered on caring for children and protecting them from harm.

Initially, in the pre-modern world, the trigger for this care/harm foundation was primarily related to the needs of our own children. However, as societies in the West progressed beyond subsistence levels into relative prosperity, our children are generally well-cared for at a fundamental level. As a result, we now experience new triggers, such as witnessing harm to defenseless animals. The core emotion that develops is compassion, and consequently, caring and kindness become primary virtues.

Individuals with a well-developed Care/Harm moral foundation are more readily moved by witnessing harm in the world. They are often emotionally affected by the pain they observe, even when it doesn’t directly impact them or their families. We all know people who become teary-eyed during commercials depicting suffering children in Africa or when watching reports from war-torn nations. Caring and kindness are virtues of paramount importance to them.

They feel the pain of others deeply, which motivates them to compassionate action on behalf of those whose pain they perceive as unwarranted. This also creates a sense of revulsion towards individuals they believe are perpetrating that harm.

We live in an age of profound interconnectedness, meaning we are aware of violence and suffering affecting far more people than previous generations. It is logical that this foundation is developing at an increasing rate in our world today. Simply put, you likely care about significantly more groups of people than your grandparents or great-grandparents did, and emerging generations will likely care about even more than our generation.

This Care/Harm moral foundation is a powerful motivator, often leveraged by those seeking power. Examining nearly any contentious political issue reveals how individuals on either side attempting to gain influence utilize this foundation to evoke our emotional responses, prompting us to donate money, volunteer time, and cast votes. While we may believe we are making logical and intellectual decisions to support them, our emotions are often driven by the desire to protect someone we perceive as being harmed.

People with differing political perspectives have their Care/Harm foundation activated in distinct ways. Consequently, they interpret the “facts” of any given issue very differently. When we witness harm occurring to someone we believe is unable to protect themselves, no amount of “facts” will change our deeply held beliefs.

Introduce religion into this dynamic, and you create a potent combination for individuals to hold deeply entrenched positions with limited capacity to even consider alternative viewpoints. This stems from the reality that their emotional connection rooted in Care/Harm has solidified their stance as morally correct, while the opposing view is perceived as immoral. Furthermore, beyond being immoral, the other position is often seen as evil because it is believed to actively cause and create harm with a complete lack of care.

Moral foundations typically operate outside our conscious awareness as we respond to the world. They are simply the environment we inhabit, and when someone points them out, we might perceive them as misguided or even aligned with the immoral, harm-inducing, evil side.

I am consciously trying to identify the issues that trigger my Care/Harm moral foundation. Typically, I only recognize it after a conversation has gone awry. A key indicator for me is when I leave a discussion thinking the other person is inherently evil and somehow enjoys causing harm. In such instances, I know the issue is rooted in my Care/Harm foundation, and therefore, I need to be even more deliberate in listening and adopting a curious stance towards that person.

There is a crucial caveat: when someone consistently inflicts actual harm on another, it is right, good, and necessary to intervene and stop that harm. However, I am learning that this occurs less frequently than I might initially believe. When I can quickly recognize that my sense of Care/Harm is driving my response, I can pause and try to understand how the other person interprets the same situation.

This same process will unfold with each of the other moral foundations. After exploring them individually, we can then attempt to draw some conclusions about the left/right political spectrum.