Why Moral Judgments Cause Division
Rodney King’s famous plea, "Can we all get along?" defines our modern political landscape. While we are naturally designed to be moral, we are also inherently judgmental. This "righteousness" allowed us to build civilizations, yet it also guarantees constant social friction.
Our minds operate like a small rider on a giant elephant. The elephant represents our automatic intuitions, while the rider is our conscious reasoning. When we face a moral dilemma, the elephant lunges toward a conclusion instantly. The rider’s job is to act as a spokesperson, crafting arguments to justify the elephant’s path.
We often assume morality is only about preventing harm or ensuring fairness. However, the human moral palette is much broader, functioning like a tongue with six taste receptors. Beyond harm, we are moved by loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Different political groups "cook" their moral messages using different combinations of these flavors.
Humans are part selfish primate and part cooperative honeybee. We spend most of our time competing for status like chimps. But under certain conditions, we become "hivish," working selflessly for the group. This ability to bind together creates strong communities, but it also blinds us to the perspectives of outsiders.
Understanding these psychological mechanisms helps drain the anger from our disagreements. When we realize that our opponents respond to different moral intuitions, we can move toward curiosity. By acknowledging our own biases, we might finally find a way to live together.
Full summary available in the Readsome app
