The Believing Brain - Michael Shermer [127]
According to Jonathan Haidt, in fact, such stereotypes can be better understood in the context of moral intuition theory,11 which explains why we have a natural aversion to certain behaviors such as incest, even if we cannot articulate those reasons. For example, read the following scenario and consider if you think the actions of the characters are morally acceptable or wrong:
Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that, was it OK for them to make love?
Almost everyone who reads this vignette, constructed by Haidt to test people’s moral intuitions, says that it is morally wrong. When asked why, they give answers such as Julie might get pregnant (but she can’t) or that it will hurt their sibling relationship (but it didn’t), or that others will find out (but they won’t). Eventually people give up reasoning and just blurt out something like, “I don’t know. I can’t explain it. I just know it’s wrong.”12
Haidt concludes from this and similar research findings that we have moral emotions that evolved to help us survive and reproduce. In the Paleolithic environment of our ancestors, incest led to the very real problem of genetic mutations from close inbreeding. Of course, no one before our generation understood the underlying genetic reasons for the incest taboo, but evolution endowed us with moral emotions for avoiding close sexual relations with our kin and kind through the natural selection against those who practiced it extensively. Haidt proposes that the foundations of our sense of right and wrong rest within five innate and universally available psychological systems.13
1. Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. We have evolved a deep sense of empathy and sympathy for others as we imagine ourselves in their position and what a situation would feel like if it were to happen to us. This foundation underlies such moral virtues as kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2. Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism, in which “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine.” This eventually evolved into genuine feelings of right and wrong over fair and unfair exchanges—a foundation that leads to such political ideals of justice, rights, and autonomy for individuals.
3. In-group/loyalty, related to our long history as a tribal species able to form shifting coalitions. We evolved the propensity to form within-group amity for our fellow tribesmen and between-group enmity for anyone in another group. This foundation creates within a tribe a “band-of-brothers” effect and underlies such virtues as patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group.
4. Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. We evolved a natural tendency to defer to authority, show deference to leaders and experts, and follow the rules and dictates given by those above us in social rank. This foundation underlies such virtues as leadership and followership, including esteem for legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
5. Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology