Die Liberalen sehen eine massive Kluft in der Verletzlichkeit zwischen den Marginalisierten und den Machthabern. Konservative hingegen betrachten Verletzlichkeit als eine universellere menschliche Eigenschaft und bewerten die Mächtigen und Göttlichen als deutlich anfälliger für Schaden als Liberale.
New psychology research pinpoints a key factor separating liberal and conservative morality
23 Kommentare
New psychology research pinpoints a key factor separating liberal and conservative morality
A new study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin suggests that liberals and conservatives actually share a common foundation for morality based on preventing harm. The research indicates that political disagreements arise because people on the left and right hold different “assumptions of vulnerability.” In other words, they make different assumptions about which groups or entities are most susceptible to being harmed.
While both sides actually agree that marginalized groups and the environment face the highest risk of harm, they disagree on the size of the gap between different groups. Liberals see a massive divide in vulnerability between the marginalized and those in power. Conservatives, on the other hand, view vulnerability as a more universal human trait, rating the powerful and the divine as significantly more susceptible to harm than liberals do.
For those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01461672261422957
How can the ‚divine‘ be susceptible to harm at all?
Is there a reason that this article is trying to paint these two groups and belief sets as equivalent when one side recognizes that marginalized people do have a different quantity of vulnerability than non-marginalized people, and the other disregards that to instead ascribes vulnerability to intangible and inhuman concepts such as „divinity“ or „the American flag? As I understand it, saying that systemic injustices against people and concepts of blasphemy are both „harm“ is like saying that apples are oranges if you squint hard enough.
So conservative tend to be more so to speak objective when evaluating vulnerability?
Is this science? Is this about American meaningless definition of „conservative“?
„Conservatives view the powerful and divine as more vulnerable than liberals do“ seems really, really obvious. Conservatives sympathize with those in power in every social, religious, political, and economic context I’ve ever come across. The foundation of their worldview is tha those in power are right and just, and those out of power are *sub-human*, in some fundamental way that makes them unworthy of consideration and respect.
Note that one view is objectively incorrect.
We see the truth. The wealth is hoarded and no one should ever be a millionaire
So conservatives hold beliefs like, *“Even if you are the super-rich CEO of Unitedhealthcare and rip off sick patients for profit, you can still be shot dead by a masked assassin any given Tuesday?“*
I mean, it’s technically accurate. Am I understanding this study, or their views, right?
If your god is susceptible to harm its no god.
Basically. Conservatives think of themselves as temporarily impoverished rich people.
Liberals recognize the difference between rich and poor.
Conservatism like it’s associated religions believe in salvation through suffering as if it’s a badge of worthiness while the rich ignore these social constraints and impose suffering through capitalistic exploitation so the symbiotic relationship enables and fuels the system almost perpetually (if it wasn’t for the limited resources)
The thing is that the powerful and the divine are man-made constructs, while the marginalized and those in power are real. It’s the difference between one’s beliefs and one’s understanding.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think it belongs on r/science to boil everyone down to „liberal“ or „conservative.“
I mean ffs up until the 1800s we didn’t even have those terms, other countries have several political factions, some have none.
I just don’t see how any study can claim it’s truly scientific and only consider that there can be just two types of political thinking.
Going to try to get ahead of all the comments responding to distractions in the headline and starting tangential arguments:
> [Graph of results (*Average Assumption of Vulnerability* v *Political Ideology*)](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_1024/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-24-124505-1024×743.png)
>“Perhaps the most interesting and important finding comes from looking at the rank order of these four categories on the extreme political left and right,” Womick told PsyPost. “Two big takeaways here.”
> “First, Across the political spectrum, people tend to agree on the relative vulnerability of groups (i.e., the rank order of each category of vulnerability). Both extreme liberals and conservatives viewed transgender people and immigrants as more vulnerable than police officers and CEOs. I think the unifying framework of perceived harm and these similar rankings across the political spectrum offer some common ground that might be useful for bridging political divides.”
> “Second, where they differed here was in the degree of these distinctions. On the extreme left, people really split vulnerability into extremes (e.g., transgender people are highly vulnerable, while CEOs are almost completely invulnerable), whereas those on the extreme right the capacity for harm, victimization, and mistreatment as more evenly distributed across groups.”
Despite what this article claims this actually seems in part in line with Moral Foundation theories conclusion just not its parameters. Rather it seems to suggest that thenconclusion of moral foundation theory may be legit but they more deeply originate bit from the differences in diverse parameters but more deeply in how those parameters connect to differences in how vulnerability is observed. In both situation conseevatives tend to be more evenily distributed while in moral foundations care, fairness and liberty is priotorized. Perhaps the way wealth is treated could relate to the depritorization of loyality, authority and sancity thouh which especially makes sense with rwgard to the powerful and divine
Chimes with a conversation I had with a conservative friend, where he likened the rich and the poor to Lions in the wild.
I.e. The big ones dominate the little ones.
That friend is an idiot. All conversations I have with Right or Conservative leaning people generally lead to that person revealing themselves to be either utterly bereft of an education, or emotionally disturbed.
Actually a very interesting article. By recapitulating values along this axis of vulnerability, there is a pretty good relation to political outlook and views of who/what is susceptible to harm. But it dies beg the question about the nature of this “vulnerability”. The divine, for instance, I’d say has zero vulnerability. Similar for objects and ideas: only humans and animals being susceptible to harm may just be a “radical left” idea, but it’s a fundamentally different view than thinking they can be harmed.
I take issue with the use of liberal and conservative in academic grade studies. They should call it “Reds” and “Blues” or something because political coalitions (in the U.S. at least) have almost nothing to do with consistent political philosophies anymore.
So conservatives are assholes who like to pass blame and avoid responsibilities. They figures.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” – Frank Wilhoit
It’s not that conservatives don’t believe that marginalized people are being hurt. It’s that they think they don’t care.
Is this not intensively modified by the (republican/conservative) *political* discourse/rhetoric from the last 20 years? Where ‚Christianity is under attack‘, ‚Christmas is under attack‘ and anti-abortion turns aggressive, and nearly everything moral becomes a left-right issue.
Peasant brain at its finest