Moral Convictions and Identity Politics

Recently, I was talking to a friend, a passionate liberal, about some evolutionary ideas not too distant from the subject of this blog when I realized that she was silently fuming. She left the house soon after, still without saying anything.

Sometime later, she posted on Facebook effusive thanks to friends who had helped her through some rough times. I and my wife—major helpers—were not included on the list. This felt like ostracism to me. Without intending to, I had violated a deeply held conviction of hers, which had forever changed the way she viewed me.

Somewhat later in the week, I heard a radio program about moral conviction. It seems that researchers using questionnaires and surveys recently established that such convictions are deeply emotional, “felt” rather than just believed. They involve affect rather than reason. These convictions seem so obviously true that they must apply to everyone. They are not personal opinions or even objectively arrived-at conclusions; they are aspects of reality.

One particular aspect of the research might help to explain my ex-friend’s reaction. You can be on someone’s side, but if you fall afoul of that person’s moral conviction, you’ll be experienced as an enemy.

Here’s an example of research on the topic. Linda Skitka, a professor at the University of Chicago, writes:

A common theme that cuts across many controversial issues of the day is that at least one side in each case defines its position in moral terms. Controversies such as abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, capital punishment, and health care reform each seem to have advocates and opponents who see these issues in terms of self-evident and fundamental truths about right and wrong (Skitka, 2010, p. 267), italics added.

Such convictions make it particularly hard for those who hold them to compromise. If someone does not share a moral conviction, he or she tends to be perceived as not only wrong but evil, the research shows.

How did such characteristics come to be? Why do people hold onto convictions so tenaciously? Why do they vilify those who don’t share them? We suspect that the tendency to experience convictions in this way originally functioned to enhance or solidify the cohesion of hunter-gatherer bands during the evolution of our species. Those who didn’t share the moral certainty of the group weren’t seen as evil but rather, simply, as “not us.” Not one of the people. Not a member of the band. Shared conviction, like skin color and language, is a marker of belonging.

The self-evidence and apparent universality of moral convictions wrap the members of a group in a cocoon of certainty that is far more effective than “meaning” or “purpose” at assuaging the agonies of doubt. Such a cocoon has the added advantage of thwarting any temptation to defect to another group: “We are the people because we know the truth.”

If the certainty of moral convictions evolved to solidify adherence to group norms and loyalty to the band, it isn’t surprising that this tendency aggravated the predisposition to Us vs. Them behavior which, of course, we inherited from animal ancestors.

What evolved to strengthen the cohesion of relatively isolated, homogenous foraging groups on the African savannah now serves to exacerbate divisiveness and hostility. In a diverse society, moral conviction tends to divide groups from one another and can make individuals combative and intolerant rather than group-oriented. Fiercely loyal to their group, they can be as fiercely antagonistic toward other groups.

It may seem depressing that the tendency to experience conviction in this way is rooted in the human genome. Are we, thus, condemned by our biology to form and hold onto positions tenaciously, even when they are demonstrably false or detrimental to ourselves and others? Perhaps we are. But knowing that the origin of this ability was its function in promoting group cohesion, not conquest, may help us avoid some of the worst pitfalls of such convictions in a diverse society.