In the year 2007, psychologist Jonathan Haidt developed a fascinating theoretical framework that analyzes moral similarities and differences across cultures. Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory outlines five moral foundations that are universal and guide moral decisions of all human beings across cultures. His framework may seem like an oversimplification of morality at first glance, but if you think about it, the interplay between these five moral foundations largely define the moral motivations of human beings. The foundations are:

1. Harm/Care: empathy towards others that are suffering.

2. Fairness/Reciprocity: reciprocal altruism, which leads to ideas of justice and equality.

3. Ingroup/Loyalty: self-sacrifice for the greater good of the group.

4. Authority/Respect: respect for traditions and social hierarchy.

5. Purity/Sanctity: notions of disgust and contamination.

So far, Haidt’s research has focused on using this framework to illustrate the moral basis for the political divide in the United States. In short, according to Haidt, liberals try to create a morality relying almost exclusively on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations; conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all five foundations, including Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. For instance, take gay marriage as an issue; although, both liberals and conservatives value Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity, conservatives hold the view that marriage is a sacred bond, only between a man and a woman. The foundations of Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity are the primary drivers behind this belief because allowing two people of the same sex to marry could possibly undermine the age-old institutions of marriage and family upon which our society is built. On the other hand, the liberal viewpoint on gay marriage is more focused on compassion for the needs of the individual. Liberals believe that two individuals who love each other (irrespective of their gender) should not be provided different rights and privileges when compared to other humans.

Moral Consideration for Animals?

Could Haidt’s framework be used to analyze the moral foundations that lead human beings to eat and use animals? Further, how does being liberal or conservative potentially influence one’s views on this issue?

As a general matter, humans do believe animals deserve moral consideration and that’s why we have animal welfare and cruelty laws that regulate the infliction of suffering or harm upon animals. Further, most humans (whether liberals or conservatives) would be morally outraged if they witnessed someone torturing or harming an animal for pleasure. You could argue that a person has to be somewhat socially progressive to extend the concept of morality to animals, which in turn may explain why a majority of animal rights supporters tend to be left-leaning. However, we can at least safely assume that most humans (whether liberal or conservative) believe sentient animals feel pleasure and pain and therefore do deserve some moral consideration. Yet, billions of people on both sides of the political divide, ranging from conservatives that openly identify themselves as animal lovers to liberals that tout their socially progressive ideals of peace, equality and justice, eat and use animals products without seeing any apparent conflict with their concept of morality. The animals that end up on our plates are not physiologically different from the ones we pet, yet farm animals are bred, live a life in captivity and end up in shrink wrap, cartons or other products for our pleasure. The human race seems to have arbitrarily come to the conclusion that some sentient animals deserve more moral consideration than others. Can Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory help us explain this apparent moral contradiction?

Applying the Moral Foundations Theory to the issue of Eating an Using Animals

Let’s try by looking at how Haidt’s foundations come into play here. Three out of the five foundations support the belief that humans should not be using and killing animals and one foundation does not apply to this issue. Here’s why: if you extend the Harm/Care and the Fairness/Reciprocity foundations to all sentient animals, the conclusion you will most likely arrive at is that we should firstly not be harming animals. Secondly, taking away their lives to benefit ourselves is unnecessary, because we now have enough scientific evidence to prove that humans can survive (and thrive) without eating or using animals (ask a vegan!). Further, unnecessary killing would conflict with our belief in justice and equality. Now, let’s look at the remaining three principles. Ingroup/Loyalty does not appear to apply to this issue, but Authority/respect may be a factor here. Eating animals or consuming their byproducts has acquired cultural and traditional significance around the world and respect for these traditions may play a role in guiding our decisions. On the other hand, the foundation of Purity/Sanctity actually supports the idea that we should not be using animals, especially not eating them. This foundation explains why certain religions forbid the consumption of meat from specific animals (e.g. pigs) or why eating insects, dogs, rats, cats or drinking animal blood is considered to be socially unacceptable in most cultures. So, with the exception of the foundation of Authority/Respect, it appears that the moral foundations of human beings (whether liberal or conservative) lead us down the path of not using and killing animals. Based on Haidt’s research, liberals have even less moral ground to stand on because the foundations of Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity should trump the respect for centuries-old cultural traditions that involve the consumption of animal products. One could argue that humane treatment of animals is a solution that helps us effectively overcome this moral challenge (like many animal lovers and animal protection organizations do), but that requires some moral gymnastics. Even humanely treated animals are are not free and are ultimately killed. Further, we don’t “need” to eat and use sentient animals to survive, so we cannot morally justify our choice to end their lives for our benefit.

Moral Failure or Moral Selectivism?

So how can we explain the fact that we kill around 60 billion land-based animals and trillions from our rivers and oceans on an annual basis to feed our desire to eat them and to supply raw materials for various industries? Further, if we factor in the health and environmental reasons why consuming and breeding animals is a terrible idea, we are left with even fewer excuses. While socio-economic factors may also need to be considered, from a purely moral standpoint, the answer is fairly simple. Although we have moral foundations that guide our beliefs on animal rights, we have mastered the art of letting denial and self-interest get in the way. Firstly, consuming animals and using products that rely on them as raw materials gives us pleasure (e.g. Meat and cheese taste good, wool feels good and leather looks good). Secondly, we have been using animals for centuries without much social opposition. Hence, using animals is actually the more convenient choice for humans, because animal based foods and products have become ubiquitous in society. Further, that manufacturers of animal products have done a great job of packaging and selling animal products in a manner that has made most humans desensitized to eating animals to the point that the idea of not eating them, in fact, makes little sense. These factors may explain why choosing to eat and use some animals is accepted as the norm, in spite of scientific evidence that proves we can live healthy lives without consuming animal products and harming and killing them appears to defy moral logic.

Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory does a great job of illustrating that we all share variations of the same moral framework. However, it also tells us that our morality can be arbitrary, selective and easily dismissed when it gets in the way of our self-interest or cultural traditions. Like humans did with racism and sexism in the past, on the issue of eating and using animals, it appears that most of us have conditioned ourselves to turn down our moral blinds. Perhaps, with continued moral, social and cultural evolution we may learn to peer through the blinds and lift them eventually.