Moral Origins

In the first four issues of this Weblog, I have examined the evolutionary origins of the economic dimension of moral and political values — from economic conservatism to economic liberalism. Beginning today, I will examine the evolutionary origins of the social dimension — from social conservatism to social liberalism.

Let’s begin by clarifying what we mean by those terms. Recall that in the discussion of the economic dimension, the extreme economic liberal was exemplified by the “bleeding heart” liberal who is motivated by compassion for the poor and powerless, and who generally advocates a more expansive welfare program. By  contrast, the extreme economic conservative was exemplified by the supporter of relatively-unrestrained free enterprise and competition, with the spoils of the competition going predominantly to the winners, and with a minimum of welfare programs so as not to undermine the incentive for hard work.

Sex, God, and Patriotism

In the social dimension, the extreme conservative is probably best represented, at least in the United States, by the religious fundamentalist who opposes abortion, contraception, premarital sex, homosexuality, sex education that discusses any of the above, pornography, most things related to sex, flag burning, and anything that smacks of the 1960’s hippy lifestyle. What is favored is religious education in the schools, sexual abstinence until marriage, a literal interpretation of the Bible, obedience to God’s laws as absolute and unchanging mandates, passionate patriotism, support of militarism (disguised as “support our troops”), and respect for traditional moral values.

The extreme social liberal, by contrast, is an atheist, a “secular humanist,” a moral relativist, and a believer in sexual freedoms and in the absolute freedom to ridicule the government and the military and to burn a flag every morning before breakfast if it makes you feel better.

Those are a lot of differences, but what is the essential difference? It is customary to characterize the social conservative as believing in absolutes, and the social liberal as believing that all things are relative, but what, really, does that mean? I think the “belief in absolutes” refers to the social conservative’s inclination to determine the goodness or badness of an act by whether it conforms to some higher law or principle — whether defined by God, some other authority, or tradition. The “relativity” of the social liberal, on the other hand, refers to the tendency of the liberal to determine the goodness or badness of an act by considering its likely effects, given the circumstances.

Which Way Do you Look?

Stated more concisely, the conservative looks “up” or “back” to a higher or prior law or principle, while the liberal looks “down” or “ahead” to the likely consequences of an act. If it will produce a good outcome, then it’s a good act; if a bad outcome, then a bad act. What is not always recognized by the “consequentialist” social liberals, however, is that you still need some way to decide whether the outcome is good or bad.

But this is not the fatal flaw that it might appear to be. It just complicates the issue. There are many ways to evaluate outcomes, such as whether they maximize total happiness, or justice, or equality, or some other objective. And shifting the moral assessment from the act to its expected consequence doesn’t resolve the moral issues. But the difference between judging an act by comparing the act itself to some prior law or by assessing its likely future consequences is a very profound difference. Does an act itself have an absolute moral value or does it derive its moral value from the moral value of its likely consequences? Is it always wrong to kill a human being, or does it depend on the circumstances?

Now even if killing is OK under some circumstances, such as self defense, capital punishment for a serious crime, or shooting an opposing soldier in wartime, one can still try to salvage the absolute nature of morality by spelling out all the exceptions explicitly in the moral laws. Then these more-complicated laws can be regarded as absolute. But is that just mental gymnastics? Did we really find the exceptions somewhere in the fine print of the Bible, or did we just make them up many years ago because they have pragmatic value — i.e., a good outcome? If the latter, why can’t we continue to make such pragmatic exceptions today, based on circumstances?

But forgive me for lapsing into a diversion. My purpose is not to argue the superiority of moral relativity, but to understand the essential difference between the social conservative and the social liberal. And it seems that it is, to a large extent at least, whether one should evaluate an act based on its conformance with a prior moral law or, rather, on the moral value of its likely consequences.

Cognitive Style

It’s worth noting that this difference might be related to a difference in what might loosely be called cognitive style. An assessment of the moral value of a specific act based on conformance with prior principles provided by someone else, such as God, requires only simple deductive reasoning. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Would this act I am contemplating be adultery? If yes, then it would be wrong. But suppose I want to punch someone in the nose. The ten commandments don’t prohibit assault, so that one’s OK. Pretty simple. Well, not quite. You can always find something somewhere in the scriptures to tweak the divine moral code into conformance with common sense. Absolutely.

An assessment based on outcomes requires much more intellectual complexity. Should I punch a threatening bully in the nose? First, I must imagine possible outcomes and assess their probabilities, all based on my past experience. What if he looks bigger and tougher than I am? This requires both induction to generalize the operation of cause and effect from similar experiences, and deduction to predict the future based on those generalized rules. What might happen if I punch him, and what might happen if I don’t? And are there other options? And what are their likely outcomes?

It’s a whole lot easier to arrive at a decision deductively based on simple, explicit rules that are accepted as absolutely valid under all circumstances. Could it be (just a thought, at this point) that people who have intellectual difficulty handling moral complexities find refuge in simple absolutes? Is there something accurate in the stereotypes of the simple-minded, uneducated red-neck making quick moral pronouncements with total confidence, and the educated professor of philosophy ruminating over the moral nuances of alternative actions under differing circumstances? If so, it isn’t that the professor lacks powers of reasoning. It’s because he or she rejects the simplistic deductive method.

I’ll follow up next Friday on this matter of the essential difference between social conservatives and social liberals, and get into the discussion of whether the difference might have roots in natural selection.

This entry was posted on Friday, October 20th, 2006 at 5:00 am and is filed under Conservatives and Liberals, Social Liberals, Social Conservatives. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.