We can define morality as the set of norms, values, beliefs, and customs that guide a person's behavior within a social or group context. It is an internal compass that allows us to differentiate between what is considered good or bad, right or wrong.
It cannot be denied that it is historical, social, and cultural; it is practical because it translates into actions and generates an internal judgment of satisfaction or guilt and remorse. But this definition remains incomplete if we do not add a metaphorical complement.
In his book "The Righteous Mind," social psychologist Jonathan Haidt argues that human beings are like "bees" who need to belong to a hive, but this same need makes us ruthless judges of those who belong to other hives. This "tribal morality," the tendency to divide the world into "us" (the good guys) and "them" (the bad guys), is the hidden driving force of all life, and political polarization is no exception.
We are not rational creatures who make moral decisions through logical thinking; that is a myth.
Using a powerful metaphor, we can, with Haidt, compare our moral psychology to a rider (reason and conscience) mounted on an elephant (intuition and emotions). The elephant is enormous, powerful, and always acts first; the rider is small, slow, and his main function is not to lead, but to justify the elephant's movements.
"Intuitions come first, and strategic reasoning comes later." - Jonathan Haidt
We are not impartial judges evaluating the facts; we are lawyers defending the pseudo-intuitions of our elephant. And the elephant, as we shall see, is deeply influenced by the team it belongs to.
Each culture and political ideology shapes its morality by assigning different weight to each principle: duty, sanctity, justice, freedom, care, loyalty, love, authority, survival, and so on.
When a group strongly identifies with a particular set of moral principles, it tends to consider those who prioritize other principles immoral. It's not that one is more rational than the other; it's that their elephants are tuned to different radio stations.
Haidt proposes a second fundamental metaphor: humans are 90% chimpanzees and 10% bees. Like chimpanzees, we are selfish, we compete for resources, and we seek our own benefit. But like bees, we have an extraordinary capacity to transcend our individual interests and merge into a collective.
This "collective spirit" is what allows us to build civilizations, cooperate in large groups, and sacrifice ourselves for ideals that transcend our individual lives. But it comes at a price: the very force that binds us to our own hive blinds us to the virtues of other hives.
Haidt suggests that humans have a "switch" that, under certain circumstances, causes us to lose our sense of self and experience a profound unity with the group. This occurs in specific situations.
Religious rituals: Dances, chants, and ceremonies that synchronize bodies and minds.
Sporting events: The collective euphoria of a goal or the shared despair of a defeat.
Patriotic fervor: The flags, the anthems, and the speeches that make us feel part of something bigger.
Political movements: The rallies, the slogans and the feeling of "building a new country".
In all these cases, the individual dissolves into the group. Morality ceases to be a personal matter and becomes a tribal one: "what is good for my group is good, and what threatens it is bad."
Haidt argues that religion and politics are not simply belief systems; they are "team sports" that have evolved to bring communities together.
Like football fans, believers and activists do the following:
They share sacred symbols that reinforce their group identity.
They participate in collective rituals that activate their "hive switch".
They feel morally superior to those who do not belong to their team.
They are willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the group.
The problem is that, when two moral teams clash, each is convinced that its cause is just and sacred, and that the other team is not only an adversary, but a moral enemy that deserves to be defeated.
Perhaps the most tragic symptom of this tribal polarization is that simply attempting to engage in dialogue with the other side is considered an immoral act. It's not just about conflicting interests; it's about conflicting moral identities. Compromise is not a political concession; it's a betrayal of the sacred values of the hive.
Haidt's theory is not pessimistic; it's realistic. It shows us that tribal morality is part of our nature, not a flaw that can be eliminated. But it also shows us that we can learn to manage it.
The key lies in recognizing three uncomfortable truths:
We are all tribal. No one is completely objective or neutral. We all belong to a hive that unites and blinds us.
The others are not immoral, just different. Those who think differently are not monsters; they have an elephant in the room with different moral foundations.
Dialogue is not betrayal; it is survival. In pluralistic societies, the only alternative to perpetual conflict is mutual learning.
If we truly want to influence someone who thinks differently, we can't simply attack their arguments. Arguments are just the tail of the dog; the elephant is the one who decides. To change someone's mind, we must:
Connect with their intuitions: Use stories, metaphors, and examples that resonate with their moral foundations.
Show respect and empathy: Direct confrontation only activates combat mode.
Find common ground. Discover shared moral foundations (we all value care, justice, or freedom) and build from there.
This doesn't mean agreeing; it means understanding. And understanding is the first step in defusing tribal dynamics.
At this point, it would seem that ideally, subjects with the following characteristics or capabilities are needed:
To recognize the moral legitimacy of the other side's values.
Finding solutions that respect multiple foundations (protecting the vulnerable without destroying traditions; guaranteeing freedom without sacrificing order).
To build inclusive narratives that allow everyone to feel part of the same hive, without anyone being demonized.
Now this is a mere idealistic hope, an illusory possible conclusion so that the reader will not be saddened even if the reality is harsher and simpler, and resembles the unhappy endings of TV series.
