Competing Moralities? Republicans & Democrats

In an essay, "What makes people vote Republican?" (I encourage reading the article in full - quite enlightening - but a breif summary follows), Professor of Moral Psychology at UVA Jonathan Haidt argues (convincingly) there are various ways of describing morality that can be divided into five various spectra, or what he calls "psychological systems":
1. harm/care
2. fairness/reciprocity
3. ingroup/loyalty (from tribalism)
4. authority/respect (from hierarchy/ordering society)
5. purity/sanctity (carnality=degrading, renunciating=noble)

The first two trace their roots to John Stuart Mill, who is one of my favorite writers and wrote a definitive work on liberalism: On Liberty. These two emphasize an individual's rights and implores people to voluntarily join the organization. Those who lean liberal (Democrats) tend to focus on these two moral spectra at the exclusion of numbers 3-5.

The final three, in contrast, use not the individual as the basic organizing principle, but the family or other small social unit. This line of thought traces its root to Emile Durkheim, and "A Durkheimian society would value self-control over self-expression, duty over rights, and loyalty to one's groups over concerns for outgroups."

Those who lean conservative (Republicans) tend to hold all five spectra/systems in their morality beliefs. Few in American would disagree with the first two morality spectra, but the final three may seem archaic or too traditional for modern-day liberals. However, for liberals to fully understand why people vote Republican, they must understand all five spectra of morality.

Prof. Haidt suggests ways the Democrats could do this: in loyalty, emphasizing diversity in unity by fighting racism, sexism and other phobias; in authority, personal responsibility and costs for not joining a group; and in purity, emphasizing the environment and condemning materialism.

There is no silver bullet, but understanding this framework will help both sides understand each other better... and realize we're all on the same human spectrum.

***Afterthoughts***

So then, are morals just social constructions passed down to us by the traditions of society? Some would argue this. Other would argue the Bible to be our guide, others tradition, others reason... and still others experience. These are the four pillars of theological argument (Scripture, tradition, reason & experience), and various pillars can be emphasized to bolster or tear down an argument.

I tend to lean towards Kant's categorical imperatives. He believes in a universal morality where you only will what you would want others to will, treating every human being as an end rather than a means and acting as if we all were legislating members.

Sounds a lot like Jesus' summary of scripture, aka the Golden Rule.