Visual essay on moral foundations and political ideology for The Brass Tacks.
You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America, and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. I also know, in a free society, people, consenting adults, can live the way they want to live. And that's to be honored.
But as we respect someone's rights and as we profess tolerance, we shouldn't change—or have to change our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.
I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage. And the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the Constitution. It has also the benefit of allowing citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, State legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution.
I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States.
| Trigger Phrase | Foundation | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| I don't know. I just don't know | loyalty | honesty |
| we have a choice to make in America | ingroup | standing with your group |
| treat people with...dignity | fairness | reciprocal altruism |
| in a free society...the way they want | liberty | desire to be free from opression |
| respect someone's rights | fairness | rendering justice according to shared rules |
| profess tolerance | fairness | reciprocal altruism |
| we shouldn't...have to change | liberty | resentment toward the dominators |
| sanctity of marriage | sanctity | the body is a temple that can be desecrated by immoral activities |
| sanctity of marriage | sanctity | the body is a temple that can be desecrated by immoral activities |
| protect marriage | authority | submitting to tradition |
| I proposed a Constitutional amendment | authority | underlies virtues of leadership and followership |
| activist judges are actually defining | liberty | resentment towards those who restrict liberty (big government) |
| protect marriage | authority | submitting to tradition |
| participate in the process | ingroup | standing with your group, family, nation |
| State legislatures must participate | liberty | resentment towards those who restrict liberty (big government) |
| judges are making those decisions | liberty | resentment towards those who restrict liberty (big government) |
We're all God's children, Bob, and I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was. She's being who she was born as. I think if you talk to anybody, it's not choice. I've met people who've struggled with this for years, people who were in a marriage because they were living a sort of convention, and they struggled with it. And I've met wives who are supportive of their husbands, or vice versa, when they finally sort of broke out and allowed themselves to live who they were, who they felt God had made them. I think we have to respect that.
The President and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford people, that you can't discriminate in the workplace. You can't discriminate in the rights that you afford people. You can't disallow someone the right to visit their partner in a hospital. You have to allow people to transfer property, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.
| Trigger Phrase | Foundation | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| We're all God's Children | ingroup | standing with your group |
| Dick Cheney's daughter | care | nurturance |
| She's being who she was | liberty | desire to be free from oppression |
| She's being who she was born as | liberty | desire to be free from oppression |
| it's not choice | liberty | desire to be free from oppression |
| people who've struggled with this for years | care | feel and dislike the pain of others |
| living a sort of convention | liberty | desire to be free from oppression |
| they struggled | care | feel and dislike the pain of others |
| wives who are supportive | ingroup | one for all, all for one |
| broke out...allowed themselves to live | liberty | desire to be free from oppression |
| who they felt God had made them | liberty | desire to be free from oppression |
| we have to respect that | authority | respect for traditions |
| we are the United States of America | ingroup | standing with your nation |
| rights that we afford people | fairness | rendering justice according to shared rules |
| you can't discriminate | fairness | rendering justice according to shared rules |
| you can't discriminate | fairness | rendering justice according to shared rules |
| You can't disallow the right to visit...hospital | fairness | rendering justice according to shared rules |
| allow people | fairness | rendering justice according to shared rules |
| partnership rights | fairness | rendering justice according to shared rules |
source (Section 3.2, page 15)
source (Chapter 7)
source (Study 4, page 1038-1040)
Debate transcripts were scraped from The American Presidency Project.
Morality binds; morality blinds.
According to Jonathan Haidt, the author of The Righteous Mind, five moral foundations govern all human ethics, virtues, and institutions: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. His Moral Foundations Hypothesis (MFH) claims that those with liberal ideologies are more sensitive to the care and fairness foundations, while those with conservative ideologies are equally sensitive to all five.
Why should we pay attention to what morals liberals or conservatives care more about? Often times we're frustrated by how biased, foolish, or illogical people become when they disagree with us over what we regard as fundamental virtues: a woman's right to privacy, gay rights, etc. But this makes a lot more sense when we understand that the members of America’s two political camps are, to a degree, blind to one or more of the moral foundations of the others. Therefore, they may perceive morally-driven words or behavior as having another basis—at best self-interested, at worst evil, and thus demonize one another. Readers should leave this essay having recognized that real change comes from understanding and appealing to the ethics of the other side.