What Evangelicals can Teach Democrats about Moral Development
Anthropologist Tanya Luhrman has a great essay in Today’s NYT, explaining the difference between the secular liberal approach to morality (based on care, given by government) and the evangelical approach (based on self-improvement, carried out within the family and the congregation):
When secular liberals vote, they think about the outcome of a political choice. They think about consequences. Secular liberals want to create the social conditions that allow everyday people, behaving the way ordinary people behave, to have fewer bad outcomes.
When evangelicals vote, they think more immediately about what kind of person they are trying to become — what humans could and should be, rather than who they are. From this perspective, the problem with government is that it steps in when people fall short. Rick Santorum won praise by saying (as he did during the Values Voters Summit in 2010), “Go into the neighborhoods in America where there is a lack of virtue and what will you find? Two things. You will find no families, no mothers and fathers living together in marriage. And you will find government everywhere: police, social service agencies. Why? Because without faith, family and virtue, government takes over.” This perspective emphasizes developing individual virtue from within — not changing social conditions from without.
As I tried to explain in chapter 8 of The Righteous Mind, the utilitarian individualism of the secular left turns off most voters. The thicker, more binding morality of social conservatives is more broadly appealing. It may even be a better recipe for producing more virtuous, self-controlled citizens, who end up creating the best consequences for the nation as a whole. This is what I was trying to describe in chapter 11 as “Durkheimian utilitarianism” — it’s a way of maximizing overall welfare that takes human nature into account.
The conservative holding requires a dark view of human nature. It does not appreciate that mortals get into problems and need resources beyond family and church to get past them. It also does not permit generosity to proceed from the secular government or community, instead insisting that it has to come from the tribe that shares the same theistic view. Finally, it is a holding that doesn’t believe in humanistic psychology: That men and women are enlightened capable beings who need no incentives to live a fair, just, equitable and peaceful life.
Community punishment that leads to inquisitions, austerity, imprisonment, and hunger can’t possibly be good for society as a whole. Calling any actions but community punishment ‘enabling’ is a moral liability for those of us who believe people are fundamentally good.
The liberal holding requires an unrealistic view of human nature. It does not appreciate that mortals get into problems and need resources beyond secular government to get past them. It also does not permit generosity to proceed from the family or church, instead insisting that it has to come from the tribe that shares the same theistic view (of men as gods). Finally, it is a holding that believes in humanistic psychology: That men and women are enlightened capable beings who need no incentives to live a fair, just, equitable and peaceful life.
Punishment by secular government that leads to inquisitions, austerity, imprisonment, and hunger can’t possibly be good for society as a whole. Calling community punishment ‘disabling’ is a moral liability for those of us who believe people are fundamentally context-sensitive creatures.
Step out of the matrix, Bert.
Well said, Bert.
I believe churches reject secular morality because it’s serious competition for religion. If morality can be achieved without the church, and if people can care for others by means other than the church, then the church becomes outmoded and unnecessary. And religion, particularly Christianity, will fight by any means necessary to eliminate any competition.
I have never understood why evangelicals are not the first to step up and use the instrument of government to achieve the goals of Jesus. Jesus emphasized helping people. He fed them, healed them, gave them whatever they asked for — and at no time did he ask if they “deserved” it. To me, this explains the American safety net. And yet, conservatives–including evangelicals–demonize the use of government.
It makes me SERIOUSLY doubt their sincerity.
The contrast between Luhrman’s take on the con/lib split and Bert’s is striking and worth pointing out. Luhrman insists that secular liberals are consequentialists – they “want to create the social conditions that allow everyday people, behaving the way ordinary people behave, to have fewer bad outcomes.” Evangelical conservatives, on the other hand, “think more immediately about what kind of person they are trying to become — what humans could and should be, rather than who they are.”
Bert believes the precise opposite – that secular liberals view people as “enlightened capable beings who need no incentives to live a fair, just, equitable and peaceful life.” In flipping Bert’s comments on their head, I called this the view “of men as gods.” Conservatives, in his mind, have “a dark view of human nature,” one that recognizes the failings of men as individuals and which claims that these are best solved via the “binding and blinding” process described in The Righteous Mind.
Thinking about people as members of a group rather than individuals is a tricky business.
It must really suck to live life thinking that the only think preventing one’s neighbor from murdering everyone else around them is a belief in an invisible man in the sky who revealed his moral code to mankind thousands of years after civilization had already bloomed.
It must really suck to live life thinking that some people think that the only thing preventing their neighbors from murdering everyone else around them is a belief in an invisible man in the sky who revealed his moral code to mankind thousands of years after civilization had already bloomed.
Painting mental caricatures of people you disagree with about some things might make you feel better in the short run (this behavior is motivated by the same taste for irrationality/”binding and blinding”described in The Righteous Mind), but its long-run effect on promoting productive discourse is undoubtedly negative.
The observation that incentives matter, and that belief in God is an incentive, need not lead inexorably to the notion that “belief in God” is the only incentive that matters. Pretending that people who disagree with you about a thing or two must necessarily reject this common-sense chain of reasoning in favor of a radical and absolutist view is to reject common-sense yourself, something I assume you don’t want to do.
Of course, it can be reasonably claimed that your comment was not intended to apply to everyone with a belief in God, only those who embrace the notion that belief in God is required for moral behavior to propagate. I have two responses to that.
1) I think your caricature probably causes you to overestimate the number of religious people who actually believe this, and to take an unjustifiably lower view of religious people who do not.
2) Empirical research shows a positive correlation between religiosity and happiness. So far as we can tell, then, it doesn’t suck to live life thinking that moral behavior requires a belief in God (though I know of no study which has controlled for this belief vs religiosity in general).
Step out of the matrix, Geoff.
btw Geoff, how would your interpretation of the above comment change if I told you that I was a liberal atheist?
How do you think your interpretation of the above comment would have been different if I had told you I was a liberal atheist at the beginning of it?
If your answer to either of these questions is “not at all,” I would suggest that you have an inflated opinion of your immunity to cognitive biases (but don’t feel bad, that’s actually a pretty common cognitive bias).
This comment is just to cheer you on. Although I know you didn’t do it for the cheers.
But seriously – you just owned that dude’s comment. Bravo
Max = your #2 is really easy to explain. “Ignorance is bliss.” I’m sure I would be much happier if I did not have the burden of reason.
I don’t know a single religious person that doesn’t fall back on “God’s will” when the serious questions arise. They’re always so comfortable!
So maybe it doesn’t “suck,” but it’s nothing to brag about either.
So let me get this straight, you’re perfectly OK with neo0fascists like santorum who go on talk-shows and say they think “the pursuit of happiness is hurting america”?…
Furthermore, don’t you think the title of ‘self-improvement’ here is dishonest? “Family values” linguistically means to this people purveyor of authoritarian moral norms. These people value obedience, not the health of others.
Furthermore, don’t you think the title of ‘care’ here is dishonest? “Given by government” linguistically means to these people the purveyor of authoritarian moral norms. These people value obedience, not the health of others.
So let me get this straight, you’re perfectly OK with neofascists like Luhrman who write for the NYT and say they think “‘those people’ vote against their own self-interest”?…
Quoting Rick Santorum is a far bigger turnoff than utilitarian individualism… I thought Santorum so far from a reasonable person that I didn’t take anything he said as serious. I thought he must be pandering to hardcore fundamentalists. But that said…
Santorum: “Go into the neighborhoods in America where there is a lack of virtue and what will you find? Two things. You will find no families, no mothers and fathers living together in marriage. And you will find government everywhere: police, social service agencies. Why? Because without faith, family and virtue, government takes over.”
How am I supposed to take Luhman seriously when she is referencing idiotic comments?
First, is it even possible to find a neighborhood where there isn’t a “lack of virtue”? Somebody please show me this perfectly virtuous neighborhood.
And am I the only one who thinks Santorum is drawing a ridiculous connection? Go in every neighborhood and you will find CHURCHES and PREACHERS too! Does that mean when the divorce rate is high that “religion” has taken over? You’ll also find gas stations. Does that mean “big oil” has taken over? Sounds like a stupid comment to me.
And “NO” families? That’s absurd. “NO” mothers and fathers living together?” Another absurdity. And hey, Santorum, you find government “everywhere” because THAT’S WHAT GOVERNMENT MEANS. A gov’t–by definition–must be everywhere.
Somebody please find me a neighborhood in any nation that has no government.
Mr. Haidt, I ordered your book but I’m now having second thoughts.
You must not know secular liberals very well. Nor do you know the kind of religious people I know.
My county is swamped with churches and self-righteous evangelicals. THEY DO NOT TEACH MORALITY. They teach OBEDIENCE to an UNQUESTIONED set of social rules.
And worst of all, THEY DON’T FOLLOW THEM. In my view, they simply use these rules as a means to control everybody else–but always give themselves permission to ignore them. Divorce? WAY out of control in these churches. The two Republican brothers swapped wives (divorced, then married his sister-in-law). Didn’t even miss a beat in church! People went in one Sunday to see the women sitting in the same row, just with different guys. Not a word said in church.
My favorite pastime is watching them collect money to pave parking lots and build basketball courts, all while living in one of the poorest counties in American history. (I live where LBJ kicked off his “war on poverty.”)
I could go on and on. When I scratch a “Christian” I find a hypocrite. It’s as if they don’t care what they do, so long as they’re in the pew on Sunday.
Sure, the Bible–if seriously read–has great moral teachings. But so did Socrates.
Again to Mr. Haidt,
If social conservatism is so appealing, why did the “party of evangelicals, the GOP” reject Santorum and choose a secular corporatist? They will be nominating Gordon Gekko, not Mother Theresa this fall.
I haven’t read the book yet, but it sounds like you simply asked people if they “believe in family” and called them conservative. I know plenty of social liberals and they believe in family values as much as any conservative. They just don’t insist on imposing it on everyone else.
(Sorry, but I’m on a roll here.)
Mr Haidt… Why should I agree that society is better off with a bunch of “virtuous, self-controlled” people instead of “fed, clothed, housed, better paid, medically cared for” people?
America had what you suggest back in the mid-19c. The reason America changed from that is because Americans don’t really want it. Correct?