Moral Foundations and Latter-day Saints

[Nofear]

Some nice social science data. I like social science data, even though I often take it with a grain of salt. Posted here as an fyi. I like this kind of stuff, I figure some others might too.

"all-in" Latter-day Saints tend to be more conservative and this is reflected by a tendency to weight the 5 moral pillars (of moral foundation theory) fairly equally; the individual morality (those of the individual or more 1:1 interactions) and the "binding" moralities (those associated with social/group interactions). Those who cease to identify with the Church tend to weight the social bonding moralities much less (not just with the Church but in general).

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2024/coates-moral_foundations

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Some nice social science data. I like social science data, even though I often take it with a grain of salt. Posted here as an fyi. I like this kind of stuff, I figure some others might too.

"all-in" Latter-day Saints tend to be more conservative and this is reflected by a tendency to weight the 5 moral pillars (of moral foundation theory) fairly equally; the individual morality (those of the individual or more 1:1 interactions) and the "binding" moralities (those associated with social/group interactions). Those who cease to identify with the Church tend to weight the social bonding moralities much less (not just with the Church but in general).

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2024/coates-moral_foundations

i'd be interested to know if this survey was done only in the US or if it was how it would compare to other countries' participant responses.

[Nofear]

10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know if this survey was done only in the US or if it was how it would compare to other countries' participant responses.

The first several slides talk about the nature of the data.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Some nice social science data. I like social science data, even though I often take it with a grain of salt. Posted here as an fyi. I like this kind of stuff, I figure some others might too.

"all-in" Latter-day Saints tend to be more conservative and this is reflected by a tendency to weight the 5 moral pillars (of moral foundation theory) fairly equally; the individual morality (those of the individual or more 1:1 interactions) and the "binding" moralities (those associated with social/group interactions). Those who cease to identify with the Church tend to weight the social bonding moralities much less (not just with the Church but in general).

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2024/coates-moral_foundations

Note that MH “conservatives” (which carries a different meaning than politically conservative) are typically equally sensitive in all five/six foundations – but this sets up the differentials with “liberals” that if left unchecked results in dysfunctional polarization, both politically and religiously/ecclesiastically (conservatives display more sensitivity or value than liberals in the Loyalty/Ingroup, Authority/Respect, and Sanctity/Purity modules and less in the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity modules, which are strongest for liberals).

Just because the average [politically] moderate American, the average [politically] conservative American, the average Latter-day Saint, the average ALL-IN Latter-day Saint are sensitive to certain values in a very similar way does not make individuals within these respective groupings politically conservative.

MFT can be used to understand and find compromise with an opposing view by building a conversational rapport (semantics) around shared values relevant to the topic at hand. This requires a good deal of work to overcome bias and fast thinking in everyday life, which to me is a function of the Holy Spirit in cultivating charity but obviously works with a secular analog also.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

Edited January 13, 2025 by CV75

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Just because the average [politically] moderate American, the average [politically] conservative American, the average Latter-day Saint, the average ALL-IN Latter-day Saint are sensitive to certain values in a very similar way does not make individuals within these respective groupings politically conservative.

Indeed, one of the areas where latter-day saints tend to diverge with groups that have a similar "conservative profile" in MFT is with respect to immigration. While there are exceptions, the LDS population tends to be much more immigrant friendly. Perhaps not as much as the more liberal demographic but nonetheless, more open to generous immigration policies.

 

"MFT can be used to understand and find compromise with an opposing view by building a conversational rapport (semantics) around shared values relevant to the topic at hand. This requires a good deal of work to overcome bias and fast thinking in everyday life, which to me is a function of the Holy Spirit in cultivating charity but obviously works with a secular analog also."

I've recommended Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind, a couple of times on this board. It adjusted my worldview.

Edited January 13, 2025 by Nofear

[Peacefully]

Very interesting! I fall somewhere between all-in and selective according to this survey. 
 

One interesting conclusion by the author “If someone says, “Fairness is the most important thing in the world to me, and avoiding harm is the most important thing in the world to me,” a God that asks Abraham to sacrifice his son isn’t going to make sense to them. It just says, “Wow, that’s a messed-up God. I don’t really want to have anything to do with that God.” “

Not necessarily. One can also believe that a loving God would not do that so therefore it must be allegorical. 

Edited January 13, 2025 by Peacefully

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Very interesting! I fall somewhere between all-in and selective according to this survey. 
 

One interesting conclusion by the author “If someone says, “Fairness is the most important thing in the world to me, and avoiding harm is the most important thing in the world to me,” a God that asks Abraham to sacrifice his son isn’t going to make sense to them. It just says, “Wow, that’s a messed-up God. I don’t really want to have anything to do with that God.” “

Not necessarily. One can also believe that a loving God would not do that so therefore it must be allegorical. 

As you show here, the initial reaction ("Wow, that's a mussed up God..."), upon further dialog (internal as well as external) and reflection, can give way to another explanation / justification / rationalization that gears someone toward a compromise (in a good way) such as "it must be allegorical". The conclusion that "it must be allegorical" may itself be an automatic (nurtured) and even pre-determined (genetic) neuron structure, with no evolution of attitude involved at all. Further dialog can lead from there, with additional context, semantics and nuance, to reconciling "fairness and avoiding harm" with something like "justice is mercy, mercy is justice and both are expressions of love and grace."

Edited January 13, 2025 by CV75

[let’s roll]

Thanks for sharing this.  I find it interesting to see how information is gathered and interpreted.  I generally decline to participate in surveys since, understandably, there is little opportunity for nuance in either the questions or the conclusions and, for me, nuance is an essential element of good information.  Looking at the questions shared in the presentation, for me to feel like my answers were accurate, I would need to include caveats or clarification of terms, without which I think the responses would be misleading.  

[Peacefully]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As you show here, the initial reaction ("Wow, that's a mussed up God..."), upon further dialog (internal as well as external) and reflection, can give way to another explanation / justification / rationalization that gears someone toward a compromise (in a good way) such as "it must be allegorical". The conclusion that "it must be allegorical" may itself be an automatic (nurtured) and even pre-determined (genetic) neuron structure, with no evolution of attitude involved at all. Further dialog can lead from there, with additional context, semantics and nuance, to reconciling "fairness and avoiding harm" with something like "justice is mercy, mercy is justice and both are expressions of love and grace."

Fairness has always been high on the list for me, so living in a world that is innately unfair causes a lot of cognitive dissonance. Attempting to reconcile the unfairness of say a child who is horribly abused and never really has a chance at life sometimes causes me to end up in a state of despair. All I can do is trust that God somehow makes it fair in the end. 

[halconero]

51 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Very interesting! I fall somewhere between all-in and selective according to this survey. 
 

One interesting conclusion by the author “If someone says, “Fairness is the most important thing in the world to me, and avoiding harm is the most important thing in the world to me,” a God that asks Abraham to sacrifice his son isn’t going to make sense to them. It just says, “Wow, that’s a messed-up God. I don’t really want to have anything to do with that God.” “

Not necessarily. One can also believe that a loving God would not do that so therefore it must be allegorical. 

You actually nailed it when you said, "not necessarily."

The language of the sentence suggests that a premium on fairness is sufficient to sustain such a belief; but does not exclude the possibility of other sufficient causes.

[let’s roll]

44 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Fairness is the most important thing in the world to me, and avoiding harm is the most important thing in the world to me,

If those who say fairness is most important are asked if they lived with fairness but no love what percentage would change their answer…or stated another way if those who say fairness is most important could have only love or only fairness how many would  choose only fairness.  Same thing with those who say avoiding harm is the most important thing…if the question is asked in a way that requires a choice between a life with no harm or no love, would avoiding harm be an acceptable substitute for love?  

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

One interesting conclusion by the author “If someone says, “Fairness is the most important thing in the world to me, and avoiding harm is the most important thing in the world to me,” a God that asks Abraham to sacrifice his son isn’t going to make sense to them. It just says, “Wow, that’s a messed-up God. I don’t really want to have anything to do with that God.” “

Not necessarily. One can also believe that a loving God would not do that so therefore it must be allegorical. 

Curiously, at least one apocryphal account actually modifies the traditional understanding of Abraham by suggesting that Satan was deceiving Abraham to believe the sacrifice command was from God. God allowed Abraham to go along with it because his sincere desire to obey God was good, but then stopped it from happening. At the moment, don't ask me which work that is, you'll have to ask Jonah Barnes. I'm not sure I side with that interpretation but I'm willing to equivocate.

Edited January 13, 2025 by Nofear

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

Fairness has always been high on the list for me, so living in a world that is innately unfair causes a lot of cognitive dissonance. Attempting to reconcile the unfairness of say a child who is horribly abused and never really has a chance at life sometimes causes me to end up in a state of despair. All I can do is trust that God somehow makes it fair in the end. 

Yes, I am all for trust, trust, trusting. God sorrows for each and every one of His children in this world, even knowing that everything has already been reconciled, because He loves us in every moment, and empathizes with our every anguish though He knows we can choose to overcome. What else can He do, when He holds all His creations and pierces them, and when at once He sees as we do and sees the big picture (Moses 7, which by focusing on the worst, covers all lesser suffering also).

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

If those who say fairness is most important are asked if they lived with fairness but no love what percentage would change their answer…or stated another way if those who say fairness is most important could have only love or only fairness how many would  choose only fairness.  Same thing with those who say avoiding harm is the most important thing…if the question is asked in a way that requires a choice between a life with no harm or no love, would avoiding harm be an acceptable substitute for love?  

The thing is, fairness and avoiding harm can be experienced as expressions of love and vice-versa. But the kind of dialog you share here helps us work through our relationships on the way to becoming one in Christ.

Love is not one of the basic moral foundations.

Edited January 14, 2025 by CV75

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

If those who say fairness is most important are asked if they lived with fairness but no love what percentage would change their answer…or stated another way if those who say fairness is most important could have only love or only fairness how many would  choose only fairness.  Same thing with those who say avoiding harm is the most important thing…if the question is asked in a way that requires a choice between a life with no harm or no love, would avoiding harm be an acceptable substitute for love?  

That wasn’t my quote. But maybe you were speaking generally. It’s an interesting question. 

Edited January 14, 2025 by Peacefully

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Duncan said:

i'd be interested to know if this survey was done only in the US or if it was how it would compare to other countries' participant responses.

[Peacefully]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Curiously, at least one apocryphal account actually modifies the traditional understanding of Abraham by suggesting that Satan was deceiving Abraham to believe the sacrifice command was from God. God allowed Abraham to go along with it because his sincere desire to obey God was good, but then stopped it from happening. At the moment, don't ask me which work that is, you'll have to ask Jonah Barnes. I'm not sure I side with that interpretation but I'm willing to equivocate.

I could get onboard with that interpretation. 

[Peacefully]

53 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, I am all for trust, trust, trusting. God sorrows for each and every one of His children in this world, even knowing that everything has already been reconciled, because He loves us in every moment, and empathizes with our every anguish though He knows we can choose to overcome. What else can He do, when He holds all His creations and pierces them, and when at once He sees as we do and sees the big picture (Moses 7, which by focusing on the worst, covers all lesser suffering also).

Remembering that somehow Jesus Christ suffered it all and can therefore understand and comfort us makes it easier to bear. 

[Dario_M]

8 hours ago, Nofear said:

Some nice social science data. I like social science data, even though I often take it with a grain of salt. Posted here as an fyi. I like this kind of stuff, I figure some others might too.

"all-in" Latter-day Saints tend to be more conservative and this is reflected by a tendency to weight the 5 moral pillars (of moral foundation theory) fairly equally; the individual morality (those of the individual or more 1:1 interactions) and the "binding" moralities (those associated with social/group interactions). Those who cease to identify with the Church tend to weight the social bonding moralities much less (not just with the Church but in general).

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2024/coates-moral_foundations

Yes but science is not always right. I see it to often. That something is scientifically proven. And they claim that as real truth. But later on they admit that they had made a mistake. 

Edited January 14, 2025 by Dario_M

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, Peacefully said:

That wasn’t my quote. But maybe you were speaking generally. It’s an interesting question. 

I was speaking generally.  Didn’t mean to imply it was a quote from you, just cut and pasted a portion of what you referenced from the presentation and commented on it.  Sorry for the confusion.

[Nofear]

10 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Yes but science is not always right. I see it to often. That something is scientifically proven. And they claim that as real truth. But later on they admit that they had made a mistake. 

I have no idea whatsoever how your comment is relevant to this thread. Are you saying the model of moral foundations is fundamentally flawed. It is a model, after all, and not a fundamental claim on reality. Libertarians, for example, are a tricky bunch that doesn't neatly align with MFT.

Science is indeed often wrong. What's nice about the scientific method is that it has correction mechanism in place. Dogmatic adherence to opinion by individuals lacks such.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

Science is indeed often wrong. What's nice about the scientific method is that it has correction mechanism in place.

One thing I might add to this is that sometimes science is just trying to find simple models to help us talk about complex phenomena. Back in my organic chemistry class, I had a professor who would frequently use molecular "stick" models to help us understand the chemistry he was trying to teach. He would frequently look at the class and wag his finger at us while saying something like, "this isn't 'the absolute truth' of what is going on in and around these molecules, but it is a model that we find useful for helping us to understand what we see, talk about what we see, and predict what we might see if..." In the same way, this "moral foundations theory" might be a useful model for understanding and talking about patterns of affiliation and disaffiliation in the church, and maybe even help us, as Br. Coates concludes, "We need to love our brothers and sisters, no matter where they are in their journey, whether they’re in the Church or they’re out of the Church. And this data can help us understand ourselves and also the people we love."

[JVW]

17 hours ago, Nofear said:

Curiously, at least one apocryphal account actually modifies the traditional understanding of Abraham by suggesting that Satan was deceiving Abraham to believe the sacrifice command was from God. God allowed Abraham to go along with it because his sincere desire to obey God was good, but then stopped it from happening. At the moment, don't ask me which work that is, you'll have to ask Jonah Barnes. I'm not sure I side with that interpretation but I'm willing to equivocate.

There was a father in the 80s in Utah who believed that God commanded him to sacrifice his 11 month old son. So he put them on the kitchen counter and stabbed them with a knife and killed them thinking that God commanded it and it was their trial of Abraham and He would stop them at the last second. I think it's reasonable to assume they were deceived by Satan that God commanded them to sacrifice their child. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/04/09/Father-will-not-be-tried-in-sacrificial-killing-infant-son/8495387176400/ Needless to say, I don't agree with that apocryphal interpretation.

[JVW]

18 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Very interesting! I fall somewhere between all-in and selective according to this survey. 
 

One interesting conclusion by the author “If someone says, “Fairness is the most important thing in the world to me, and avoiding harm is the most important thing in the world to me,” a God that asks Abraham to sacrifice his son isn’t going to make sense to them. It just says, “Wow, that’s a messed-up God. I don’t really want to have anything to do with that God.” “

Not necessarily. One can also believe that a loving God would not do that so therefore it must be allegorical. 

My first reaction when reading this blurb was that I can't reconcile fairness and avoiding harm in the same sentence. Is it possible to be fair without causing/allowing harm, or vice versa? I also have to wonder how fairness is defined or perceived. In my immediate thoughts I think there are two kinds of fairness, the capitalistic kind, and the communistic kind. If someone works hard and makes a million dollars through frugal saving, and someone else is lazy and gluttonous and makes a thousand dollars in that same time period, is it fair for one person to have a million dollars and the other to have a thousand? On the other hand, if both people equally receive $500,000 dollars in the same time period because that's what's fair, but the work ethic and saving habits remain the same for each respective person, is that fair? Both scenarios could be argued as being fair depending on the view, and both scenarios could be seen as allowing/inflicting harm depending on the view. So how can the world be perfectly fair without any harm occurring?

[Peacefully]

11 hours ago, let’s roll said:

I was speaking generally.  Didn’t mean to imply it was a quote from you, just cut and pasted a portion of what you referenced from the presentation and commented on it.  Sorry for the confusion.

No worries. The blurb didn’t represent my thoughts so I was surprised to have my name attached to it.