Does Uncompromising Morality Harm or Help?
Also, a course on relating to group identities — BCB #151
It’s important—and good—to feel like a part of something. But when participation or belonging in a community are contingent on complete and total shared beliefs, you have a problem on your hands. In an essay for the MIT Press Reader, cognitive scientist Steven Sloman parses the way that sacred values, or beliefs that members of a given group consider fundamental and absolute, may be driving people to extremes.
Sacred values may signify that one has a conscience, but they also have a dark side. They can lead to extremism and terror. They can be the foundation for an intransigence that is a root cause of many of society’s deepest and most pressing problems.
…
The Right is called to conserve or reestablish what they see as the true America, or to “Make America Great Again.” The Left is called to build a United States based on diversity and inclusion. Both of these calls are for action. As soon as they are seen in absolute terms, as among a citizen’s highest callings, they have become sacred values.
On the left, one specific example of a sacred value might be staunchly advocating for immigrant rights. On the right, it might take the form of wanting a total abortion ban. This kind of rhetoric has long been the bread and butter of politicians. In his famous 1983 “Evil Empire” speech, Ronald Reagan framed opposition to communism as a religious and moral imperative. In the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments early feminists declared suffrage a “sacred” right.
The Benefits of Moral Clarity
There are many well-known historical examples where holding to one’s values despite opposition succeeded. Winston Churchill’s “We shall never surrender” speech comes to mind, as does MLK’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, but there are plenty of less dramatic examples that succeeded on their own terms (regardless of where your personal politics may lie):
The Keystone XL pipeline. Climate and Indigenous activists maintained a “no pipeline, ever” posture for 12 years. In January 2021 President Biden revoked the cross‑border permit; TC Energy abandoned the project that June, a landmark victory credited to the uncompromising campaign.
Gun‑rights jurisprudence. “No compromise” lobbying by NRA‑aligned groups produced the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and, more recently, NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), which struck down “may‑issue” carry laws and set a history‑and‑tradition test that is now being used to topple other gun regulations.
As Sloman explains, “Moral prescriptions may serve as a rough guide for behavior, but it’s sacred values that often compel us to act.” He cites the research of psychologist Linda Skitka, who conducted a study wherein participants were asked “to what is extent is your position connected to your beliefs about fundamental right and wrong?” People with stronger moral convictions tended to be more politically engaged.
Conviction is what turns values into action. We need political actors and ordinary people alike to be attuned to their own moral compasses for our democracy to function healthily.
The Dark Side of Conviction
Yet being morally right is not the same as being pragmatically effective. Skitka’s study also found that stronger moral convictions were associated with less tolerance of other attitudes and more resistance to conflict solutions. Outrage over sacred values—however morally justified—can all too easily harden divisions and make progress much harder to achieve.
The cases where conviction backfired are lesser known, but not that hard to find.
Total abortion bans: After Dobbs, pro‑life leaders pursued blanket bans. Kansas voters rejected the anti‑abortion “Value Them Both” amendment 59‑41 (Aug 2022). Ohio voters passed a constitutional amendment in response to attempts to limit access in November 2023, the same month that Virginia Democrats won full control of the legislature in 2023 after campaigning against a proposed 15‑week ban.
The slogan "trans rights are not up for debate" attempted to place the issue beyond democratic deliberation. Thus, Kamala Harris said she would support gender-affirming medical care for illegal immigrants and prisoners when asked by the ACLU. The legal situation here is complex; but the sound-bite is very simple, and this became the basis of Trump's most effective 2024 campaign ad, “Kamala is for they/them, Trump is for you.”
As Sloman points out, the hardest thing about making a decision is having to examine competing priorities and make trade-offs. If you hold fast to a sacred value at all costs, you get to bypass the challenging part of deciding about something. Actual progress takes a backseat to revolutionary fantasies.
When our reasoning and discourse are grounded in absolute notions of correct behavior, we become conjoined with our own ideas, identified with them, and therefore unable to compromise, deliberate, or reach agreement with others.
This “increases political intensity and engagement” but doesn’t necessarily produce better outcomes.
Threading the Needle on Core Values
At this point, some readers will be thinking: are you really arguing for compromise with a bad-faith actor? Is there seriously any middle ground between “I have rights” and “I don’t have rights?” Some readers might be making comparisons to appeasing Hitler.
Perhaps, Sloman argues, there are other ways to approach sacred values that acknowledge their validity while creating opportunities for progress and persuasion. One might, he writes, encourage people who hold sacred values to engage with their ambiguity and complexity. For example, “freedom” may be essential, but what does that mean in practice?
It can also be productive to account for the costs of conflict, and take small wins when available. An example of this can be seen in Jonathan Cowan’s recent op-ed about the need for Democrats to meet middle-of-the-road Americans where they on trans issues (which has, understandably, caused outrage among some trans folks).
Above all, Sloman seems to be arguing for thinking through the practical implications of one’s beliefs.
Most issues can be framed in terms of the consequences they produce. Rather than asking whether it is right or wrong to, say, allow people to carry concealed weapons, we can ask what the consequences of such a policy would be. And asserting a consequentialist frame makes conversation possible. It turns out that people on both sides desire many of the same consequences (lower murder and suicide rates, and fewer mass shootings). By framing issues in terms of how to achieve consequences, we can avoid violating people’s sacred values and find common ground.
As always: not no conflict, but better conflict.
Learn how group identity shapes politics
How do people come to feel they have a shared identity with those around them? What group dynamics and psychological insights can be harnessed to promote social cohesion today? Friends of BCB Jay Van Bavel and Dominick Packer have created a free online course, called “The Power of Shared Identity,” which adapts many of the concepts they explore in their book to help people learn about and think through these and other questions.
Each week is presented with a video, readings, and interactive assignments. Weekly topics include:
Why we are suckers for astrology, the Meyers-Briggs, and other shaky psychology tests?
Fighting misinformation with science
Escaping echo chambers
Using social norms to clean up your community
Reducing racial bias in the sharing economy
As they explain, the course was designed for college students but could also work well for a book club, organizational workshop, or other academic seminar.
Quote of the Week
I have good news, and I have bad news.
The good news is: the cavalry is coming. We are saved. The crisis will be resolved. The problem will be solved.
The bad news is: if you are reading this, you’re the cavalry.
If stopping Keystone and gun right regulations are the best example of "no compromise" "successes" that just speaks to how terrible the approach is. Both of those victories are bad for our country.