Elizabeth Kolbert
The New Yorker
Originally published 13 Jan 25
Here is an excerpt:
Gray describes himself as a moral psychologist. In contrast to moral philosophers, who search for abstract principles of right and wrong, moral psychologists are interested in the empirical matter of people’s perceptions. Gray writes, “We put aside questions of how we should make moral judgments to examine how people do make more moral judgments.”
For the past couple of decades, moral psychology has been dominated by what’s known as moral-foundations theory, or M.F.T. According to M.F.T., people reach ethical decisions on the basis of mental structures, or “modules,” that evolution has wired into our brains. These modules—there are at least five of them—involve feelings like empathy for the vulnerable, resentment of cheaters, respect for authority, regard for sanctity, and anger at betrayal. The reason people often arrive at different judgments is that their modules have developed differently, either for individual or for cultural reasons. Liberals have come to rely almost exclusively on their fairness and empathy modules, allowing the others to atrophy. Conservatives, by contrast, tend to keep all their modules up and running.
If you find this theory implausible, you’re not alone. It has been criticized on a wide range of grounds, including that it is unsupported by neuroscience. Gray, for his part, wants to sweep aside moral-foundations theory, plural, and replace it with moral-foundation theory, singular. Our ethical judgments, he suggests, are governed not by a complex of modules but by one overriding emotion. Untold generations of cowering have written fear into our genes, rendering us hypersensitive to threats of harm.
“If you want to know what someone sees as wrong, your best bet is to figure out what they see as harmful,” Gray writes at one point. At another point: “All people share a harm-based moral mind.” At still another: “Harm is the master key of morality.”
If people all have the same ethical equipment, why are ethical questions so divisive? Gray’s answer is that different people fear differently. “Moral disagreements can still arise even if we all share a harm-based moral mind, because liberals and conservatives disagree about who is especially vulnerable to victimization,” he writes.
Here are some thoughts:
Notably, I am a big fan of Kurt Gray and his research. Search this site for multiple articles.
Our moral psychology is deeply rooted in our evolutionary past, particularly in our sensitivity to harm, which was crucial for survival. This legacy continues to influence modern moral and political debates, often leading to polarized views based on differing perceptions of harm. Kurt Gray’s argument that harm is the "master key" of morality simplifies the complex nature of moral judgments, offering a unifying framework while potentially overlooking the nuanced ways in which cultural and individual differences shape moral reasoning. His critique of moral-foundations theory (M.F.T.) challenges the idea that moral judgments are based on multiple innate modules, suggesting instead that a singular focus on harm underpins our moral (and sometime ethical) decisions. This perspective highlights how moral disagreements, such as those over abortion or immigration, arise from differing assumptions about who is vulnerable to harm.
The idea that moral judgments are often intuitive rather than rational further complicates our understanding of moral decision-making. Gray’s examples, such as incestuous siblings or a vegetarian eating human flesh, illustrate how people instinctively perceive harm even when none is evident. This challenges the notion that moral reasoning is based on logical deliberation, emphasizing instead the role of emotion and intuition. Gray’s emphasis on harm-based storytelling as a tool for bridging moral divides underscores the power of narrative in shaping perceptions. However, it also raises concerns about the potential for manipulation, as seen in the use of exaggerated or false narratives in political rhetoric, such as Donald Trump’s fabricated tales of harm.
Ultimately, the article raises important questions about whether our evolved moral psychology is adequate for addressing the complex challenges of the modern world, such as climate change, nuclear weapons, and artificial intelligence. The mismatch between our ancient instincts and contemporary problems may be a significant source of societal tension. Gray’s work invites reflection on how we can better understand and address the roots of moral conflict, while cautioning against the potential pitfalls of relying too heavily on intuitive judgments and emotional narratives. It suggests that while storytelling can foster empathy and bridge divides, it must be used responsibly to avoid exacerbating polarization and misinformation.
