Moralischer Absolutismus erklärt die Unterstützung von Verboten besser als konservative oder liberale Ideologie | Untersuchungen legen nahe, dass Konservative eher dazu neigen, Moral als universell und absolut zu betrachten, während Liberale dazu neigen, sie als relativ und kontextabhängig zu betrachten.

From the article: A new series of studies has identified a fundamental difference in moral philosophy that helps explain why political conservatives are often more supportive of banning practices they find immoral compared to liberals with similar moral views. The research, [published](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2026-54530-001?doi=1) in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, suggests that conservatives are more inclined to see morality as universal and absolute, while liberals tend to view it as relative and context-dependent. This basic difference in worldview predicts an individual’s willingness to translate personal moral opposition into support for legal prohibitions.

The research was prompted by observations from public opinion polls. For example, among Americans who believe abortion is wrong, Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats to support making it illegal in all cases. A similar pattern appears on other issues, such as recreational marijuana use. This raised a question for researchers: why would two people who see a practice as equally wrong arrive at different conclusions about whether it should be banned?

Past explanations, which focused on the different values liberals and conservatives prioritize, did not fully resolve the issue, as studies have shown both groups can hold their respective moral convictions with equal strength. The authors of the new paper proposed a novel theory, suggesting the answer lies not in what people believe is immoral, but in their underlying beliefs about the nature of morality itself.

“As a cultural and social psychologist, I learned early on that my field has long wrestled with a fundamental question: is morality entirely a product of culture, or are there certain moral truths that transcend it? I first encountered this debate as a PhD student, and it’s lingered with me ever since,” said study author Namrata Goyal, an assistant at Esade Business School.

“But, in recent years, as political polarization has deepened, this philosophical question has become deeply personal. I’ve often found myself in political debates with family and friends that reach an impasse, not because we disagree on evidence, but because we begin from different moral premises. Some people see morality as fluid and context-bound; others experience it as absolute, fixed, universal. I realized that differences in political opinions often aren’t political, they’re philosophical. And that realization ultimately became the spark for this research.”

Clear moral rules feel safer to enforce than flexible ones I would think. People who seek certainty tend to push their personal values into public law. Might not just be politics. It’s could also be how mind organizes right and wrong.

I think the problem with this is conservatives tend to hold these values consistently with the exception of when it applies to themselves. 

You cannot legislate *Morality*.

Even if **everyone** somehow, some way, unanimously agreed on the definition of *Morality*, you **still** cannot legislate *Morality*.

„Conservatives are intellectually lazy“ — Who couldve seen this coming

The dangers of dogma. Faith should be a dirty word