Summer Reading: The Righteous Mind VII: Moral Foundations

Anonymous

Sun, 07/15/2012 - 03:13

Book Reviews

Jonathan Haidt in his book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/03073…; target="”_blank”">The

Righteous Mind</a>: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and
Religion (Pantheon, 2012), set out a Moral Foundations Theory that posits the existence of moral modules or foundations. In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/summer-reading-righteous-mind-vi-fair…; target="”_blank”">my last post</a> I dealt with the fairness/proportionality foundation. Here I will deal with four of the five other foundations, and how they relate to government ethics.

Loyalty/Betrayal 
Haidt cites studies that have shown that people become far
more competitive when they think there is a rival group. Much of
what they do is positive, in the sense that competition provides loyalty and
group cohesion, something every big corporation works hard to
cultivate. But big corporations are, in fact, competitive. Local
governments are not. 
 
Or are they? Yes, they do compete for businesses to stay or relocate
to their community, but this sort of competition is not the basis
for loyalty in local government. 
 
Studies have shown (and we know it anyway) that men are innately
tribal and that, therefore, they actually enjoy the things that lead
to group cohesion. They don't need an actual competitor to be loyal
and to engage in activities that bring them closer together. On the
other hand, it's more fun where there is an enemy or, at least, an
opposing team. 
 
In poor ethics environments, that enemy is the public (and sometimes
those who protect the public, such as auditors, prosecutors, good
government groups, gadflies, and ethics commissions). It is the
public from whom such a government keeps things secret. It is the public at large that officials try
to keep off boards and commissions, try to limit their exposure at
public meetings, refuse to answer their questions (at least
straightforwardly), and talk about as if they were the government's
principal obstacle rather than its principal beneficiary.

Political parties provide a certain amount of competition in local
governments, even those that have nonpartisan elections. And elected
officials in one-party governments are often divided into competing
factions. But partisan politics is not supposed to have any effect
on public administration. There is not supposed to be any
competition, only accountability. Officials are supposed to work
together because they are representing the same community, not
because they are in competition with any community, especially their
own. That's why secrecy, silence, and obstacles to citizen
participation, understandable in corporations, are so out of place
in local governments. 
 
It is with betrayal – the flip side of loyalty – that one can see
clearly how inappropriate loyalty is in local government. If someone
reports misconduct, they are seen to betray their colleagues and
superiors, even if they are reporting the misconduct to the people
to whom they have a fiduciary duty, that is, the public (or those
assigned to protect the public). Betrayal is seen to occur even when
officials talk openly about government business that others would
prefer to keep secret, sometimes so that they and their business
associates can take advantage of the information. It is not an
accident that most ethics codes contain a provision making it a
violation to disclose information that is not available to the
public, even if they are disclosing it to the public and preventing
others from misusing it for personal gain. Such a provision says a
great deal about where a local government stands with respect to the
loyalty/betrayal foundation. 
 
Authority/Subversion 
The authority/subversion foundation, when applied to government
ethics, is rather paradoxical. It is important to government
operation that there be a clear hierarchy, with those elected
directly by the people in charge, at least, of policy. Public
administration is also hierarchical. To wield authority, it is
important that higher-level officials act in ways that make that
authority appear appropriate, what some would call "earned." 
 
As Haidt says, when officials "act in ways that negate or subvert
that order, we feel it instantly, even if we ourselves have not been
directly harmed." Yes, when those who manage our community engage in
ethical misconduct, they are acting subversive, undermining the
values that we seek in hierarchical order, causing a certain amount
of chaos. That is why it is so often said that, when allegations of
ethical misconduct are being considered, there is a cloud over a
local government. It is hard for a mayor, council members, or city
or county manager to function effectively under such a cloud. The
effects are often much more serious than the actual misconduct,
which might be relatively minor. 
 
And yet officials often deny allegations against them, even when
they are true, seeing their authority as protecting the
community, even when they have engaged in misconduct. On balance,
they feel they are a great asset to the community, and that it would
subvert the order to have them lose any of their authority. Resignation would lead to chaos. So they choose to act under a cloud rather
than bringing about order by admitting misconduct and reaching a
swift and fair resolution of the matter. They again put their
self-interest (or egotism) above the public interest, and continue
subverting the community's order in the name of the community. It is no surprise that the public often
calls for their head. 
 
Haidt points out that it is because authority involves protecting
order that "everyone has a stake in supporting the existing order
and in holding people accountable for fulfilling the obligations of
their station." 
 
This is a very old-fashioned view of society, but that does not make
it less true. In fact, it means that this is something deeply
important to us, which we too often tend to ignore in our
individualistic culture. And it is deeply important to many officials, allowing them to act in their
self-interest rather than fulfilling their obligations and letting
themselves be held accountable (or, better, seeking professional
advice so that they can properly fulfill their obligations in the
first place). 
 
Sanctity/Degradation 
With respect to government ethics, the sanctity/degradation
foundation is both helpful and harmful. It is helpful, because the
disgust that accompanies an official's degradation through
misconduct, denial, and cover-up is what causes people not to simply
give in when an official makes a false denial or tries to attack the
enforcement mechanism. 
 
It is harmful, because sometimes the public sees its leaders as
sacred, resenting anyone who tries to take them down a peg, even if
it is deserved. People want their community leaders to be something
more than human, something more than fallible. This is true with
respect to clergy, principals and teachers, coaches, and
politicians. While people often say in polls that they have little
respect for politicians, they usually say that they respect their
own mayor and representatives. We want father figures, or even
something more. We don't want to be disappointed, and we don't want
to see our leaders degraded. 
 
I saw this happen in my own town, where the first selectman
(effectively the mayor) was considered by many people to be above
reproach, even after two of his department heads had been arrested.
Although he was not re-elected, few people wanted him to be
criticized, not to mention held accountable for such things as not
bidding out contracts, even though he had sole authority over
procurement. Criticism of his actions was greeted with an anger that
I saw in no other context. It was as if one was criticizing a great ancestor in a culture that worships ancestors. 
 
Liberty/Oppression 
Haidt's discussion of the liberty/oppression foundation has some
interesting implications for government ethics. Although humans are,
he argues, innately hierarchical, like the other apes, we made a
political transition that allowed us to band together to punish
alpha males who overly or improperly dominated our group. Weapons
helped a lot, making physical strength less important. But language
helped even more. "[E]arly humans developed the ability to unite in
order to shame, ostracize, or kill anyone whose behavior threatened
or simply annoyed the rest of the group." Gossip was an effective
way to keep people in line. 
 
Ethics enforcement can be usefully seen as a formal,
more fair and reliable form of gossip. It is one of the newer ways
communities have developed to limit their oppression by leaders. 
 
That is why, whenever there is a scandal, the first thing everyone
thinks of is laws and enforcement. Training and advice are even more
evolved ways of dealing with leaders who put their self-interest
ahead of the public interest, but the public hasn't caught up with this new idea yet. Nor have most elected officials. 
 
It is the evolution from hierarchy to relatively egalitarian
politics that makes things so difficult and emotional when it comes
to government ethics. If it was accepted that whoever fought
successfully for leadership could do anything he wanted, the big
gorillas in every community would hire and give contracts to their
family members and supporters, and no one would complain. That is,
after all, how dictatorships, and some political machines, run. 
 
As it is, elected officials sometimes come to feel like big
gorillas, but they live in a culture where gossip (now made faster
by the internet and its blogs), and ethics enforcement, make
reputation so important and worth fighting for, via accusations,
intimidation, lies, and cover-ups. The means used to support one's
reputation feed right into the righteous anger that derives from the
liberty/oppression foundation, leading to what is usually regarded
as partisan rancor, but is often much more than that. 
 
 
Continue with <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/summer-reading-righteous-mind-viii-gr… next post on this book.</a> 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Summer Reading: The Righteous Mind VII: Moral Foundations

Tags

Share This Page