This page introduces Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) and will include links to subpages with an in-depth explanation of each foundation. Janathan Haidt introduces MFT in his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. MFT was developed by Jonathan Haidt, Jesse Graham, and their colleagues to better understand human moral decision making.
For the purpose of this theory, a foundation is a kind of neural structure hardwired into each human at birth. Haidt likens it to a first draft written by the baby’s genes that are then “edited” by the experiences that person has as they live. As we experience life, we subconsciously update the draft based on what we experience and learn from those around us. Each foundation is a continuum between two opposing concepts upon which we place how moral or immoral something is.
Care-Harm. Haidt writes this foundation “evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children. It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need; it makes us despise cruelty and want to care for those who are suffering.” This is the most basic foundation which influence which moral decisions, and it’s the first foundation to manifest in infants.
Liberty-Oppression. Haidt writes this foundation “makes people notice and resent any sign of attempted domination. It triggers an urge to band together to resist or overthrow bullies and tyrants.” This foundation was identified after the other five foundations based on continued research and is particularly strong among libertarians.
Fairness-Cheating. Haidt writes this foundation evolved to help humans reap “the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited. It makes us sensitive to indications that another person is likely to be a good (or bad) partner for collaboration and reciprocal altruism. It makes us want to shun or punish cheaters.” This foundation is more complex than others and involves both equality (everyone is treated the same) and proportionality (everyone is treated based on one or more scales, such as how much effort was contributed). The cognitive psychologist George Lakoff identified ten kinds of fairness that fall into either the equality or proportional group. Each of the ten kinds can be considered fair, but as soon as one kind is identified as being fairest in a given situation, the other nine become unfair. Everyone may not accept the first one as being fair. Click here for more information.
Sanctity-Degradation. Haidt writes this “foundation evolved initially in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore’s dilemma, and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It includes the behavioral immune system, which can make us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats.” The behavioral immune system is a system within animals that helps animals determine what is safe or unsafe to eat or be around. Humans attribute connotations of what is “pure” or “putrid” to symbols which often connote different things to different people. Click here for more information.
Authority-Subversion. Haidt writes this “foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us with social hierarchies. It makes us sensitive to signs of rank or status, and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their position.” The arrangement within a hierarchy and what behavior is proper for each position in the hierarchy is subjective and based on group consent. Click here for more information.
Loyalty-Betrayal. Haidt writes this foundation “evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of building and maintaining coalitions. It makes us sensitive to signs that another person is (or is not) a team player. It makes us trust and reward such people, and it makes us want to hurt, ostracize, or even kill those who betray us or our group.” For some people, being loyal to their group(s) is an intrinsic part of their identity. Think of a die-hard sports fan who supports a particular team and cannot support an opposing team no matter the situation. To betray that team would be worse than death. Click here for more information.
MFT is an evolving theory. When Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind, MFT included the six foundations listed below. Since then, a few more foundations have been proposed. See Moral Foundation Theory.org for the latest information on additional foundations.
While each of the six identified foundations influence individuals to varying degrees in a given situation, Haidt argues there are three large groups in which members are influenced by a common arrangement of foundational influence within each group. He calls each common arrangement the “sacred value” for the groups listed below.
- “Progressive (Liberal) – Care for victims of oppression”
- “Libertarian – Individual Liberty”
- “Conservative – Preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain a moral community”
I always try to keep in mind one key implied element of the conservative sacred value: each conservative group defines what a moral community looks like, and which institutions and traditions sustain that community. Unlike liberals and libertarians, who Haidt argues are strongly influenced by only a few of the foundations, conservatives are influenced by all six foundations about equally. Given each conservative group defines what is moral, and each group is composed of members who are influenced by all six foundations, it’s easy to overgeneralize about what a particular conservative group believes. That being said, I think it’s safe point out that extreme conservative groups are often in conflict with other groups–including other conservative groups. What makes conservative group conservative is not their own particular morality, it’s that each is trying to preserve what it believes is a moral community against the immorality of other groups.
How a person’s neural network has developed for each of the foundations triggered in a situation influences that person’s subconscious feelings and conscious justifications for what is very moral, very immoral, or somewhere in between. If you’re curious about how the foundations above influence your own thinking about morality, visit YourMorals.org. The site offers sets of questions to help people identify their own unique moral values and to what extent each foundation factors into their own morality. For a deeper understanding of Moral Foundation Theory itself, visit the sites below: