The Problem with Morality: Impeding Progress and Increasing Divides

Abstract

Morality is commonly held up as the pinnacle of goodness but can also be a source of significant problems, interfering with societal functioning and progress. We review the literature regarding how morality diverges from nonmoral attitudes, biases our cognitive processing, and the ways in which it can lead to negative interpersonal and intergroup consequences. To illustrate the negative implications of morality, we detail two specific examples of how moral convictions impair societal progress: the rejection of science and technology, and political polarization in the United States. Specifically, we discuss how moral convictions can cause individuals to challenge scientific facts (e.g., evolution), oppose technologies that can improve health and well‐being (e.g., vaccinations and GMO foods), and fuel political polarization and segregation. We conclude this review by suggesting strategies for policy makers and individuals to help overcome the problems morality can cause.

Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides

“…Research indicates that individuals experience their moral convictions as objective truths about the world (Skitka et al, ). As a result, it can be difficult to recognize that there are different “truths” that other people believe in (Ditto & Koleva, ; Kovacheff et al, ). Indeed, polling data indicates that people are apt to perceive someone who does not endorse their morality as simply immoral or evil, rather than morally different (Doherty & Kiley, ).…”

“…Moral convictions are one of the key underlying bases of people's attitudes. They are central and immutable parts of one's identity (Aquino & Reed, 2002;Atran & Axelrod, 2008;Kovacheff, Schwartz, Inbar, & Feinberg, 2018;Skitka et al, 2005;Strohminger & Nichols, 2014). Because moral convictions are so strongly held, arguments that appeal to them are difficult to discount, even when used to argue for a position one would typically oppose.…”

The Political is Personal: The Costs of Daily Politics

“…More abstractly, politics is often intrinsically linked to people's core moral beliefs and convictions (e.g., polarizing "culture war" issues, like abortion and immigration) (Feinberg & Willer, 2013Graham et al, 2011;Haidt, 2012;Koleva et al, 2012). Because moral convictions are central to people's sense of self (Strohminger & Nichols, 2015), political events that challenge moral convictions are experienced as a personal affront and met with strong negative emotional responses (Haidt, 2001(Haidt, , 2012Kovacheff et al, 2018). Additionally, individuals commonly develop a sense of social identification with a political party (Huddy, 2002;West & Iyengar, 2020), which engenders a personal stake in how that group fares -often to the point where people's self-esteem tracks with the group's successes and failures (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).…”

Why moral advocacy leads to polarization and proselytization: The role of self-persuasion

“…Although a growing body of literature now suggests that the use of moral language in rhetoric can lead to polarization, few studies have investigated methods of persuasion that may depolarize an already polarized attitude (see Feinberg & Willer, 2013 for an exception). Although many have proposed rational argumentation or non-moral framing as a potential solution to reducing polarization (Kovacheff, Schwartz, Inbar, & Feinberg, 2018), this is yet to be tested empirically in the context of advocacy. We suggest that one way to reduce polarization and encourage more open communication between ideological groups, is to change the way in which people communicate their own attitudes and beliefs.…”

“…Given the emphasis placed on the universality and correctness on one's own moral values, advocates are more likely to experience processing ease and fluency when justifying their position in moral terms. Moral values are highly sacralized and ingrained in our minds, and we use these as a basis to view the world (Kovacheff et al, 2018). People tend to think that their own moral values are both factual and universal (Tetlock, 2003), and thus may have difficulty understanding worldviews which deviate from one's own (Feinberg & Willer, 2013.…”