Editing Morality (section)

==Politics==
If morality is the answer to the question 'how ought we to live' at the individual level, [[politics]] can be seen as addressing the same question at the social level, though the political sphere raises additional problems and challenges.<ref>See Weber, Eric Thomas. 2011. ''[http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/morality-leadership-and-public-policy-9781441144812/ Morality, Leadership, and Public Policy]'' (London: Continuum).</ref> It is therefore unsurprising that evidence has been found of a relationship between attitudes in morality and politics. [[Moral foundations theory]], authored by [[Jonathan Haidt]] and colleagues,<ref name="Haidt2004">{{cite journal |last1=Haidt |first1=Jonathan |last2=Joseph |first2=Craig |title=Intuitive ethics: how innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues |journal=Daedalus |date=September 2004 |volume=133 |issue=4 |pages=55–66 |doi=10.1162/0011526042365555|s2cid=1574243 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Graham2013">{{cite book | last1=Graham | first1=J. | last2=Haidt | first2=J. | last3=Koleva | first3=S. | last4=Motyl | first4=M. | last5=Iyer | first5=R. | last6=Wojcik | first6=S. | last7=Ditto | first7=P.H. | title=Moral Foundations Theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism | journal=Advances in Experimental Social Psychology | volume=47 | year=2013 | pages=55–130 | url=http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jessegra/papers/GHKMIWD.inpress.MFT.AESP.pdf | doi=10.1016/b978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4 | isbn=978-0124072367 | s2cid=2570757 | access-date=2019-07-22 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170731065520/http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~jessegra/papers/GHKMIWD.inpress.MFT.AESP.pdf | archive-date=2017-07-31 | url-status=dead }}</ref> has been used to study the differences between [[Liberalism|liberals]] and [[conservatism|conservatives]], in this regard.<ref name=haidt/><ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt |title=Morality: 2012: Online Only Video |magazine=[[The New Yorker]]|access-date=2012-05-06}}</ref> Haidt found that Americans who identified as liberals tended to value care and fairness higher than loyalty, respect and purity. Self-identified conservative Americans valued care and fairness less and the remaining three values more. Both groups gave care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives valued fairness the lowest, whereas liberals valued purity the lowest. Haidt also hypothesizes that the origin of this division in the United States can be traced to geo-historical factors, with conservatism strongest in closely knit, ethnically homogeneous communities, in contrast to [[port]]-cities, where the cultural mix is greater, thus requiring more liberalism.

Group morality develops from shared [[concept]]s and [[belief]]s and is often codified to regulate behavior within a [[culture]] or community. Various defined actions come to be called moral or immoral. Individuals who choose moral action are popularly held to possess "moral fiber", whereas those who indulge in immoral behavior may be labeled as socially degenerate. The continued existence of a group may depend on widespread conformity to codes of morality; an inability to adjust moral codes in response to new challenges is sometimes credited with the demise of a community (a positive example would be the function of [[Cistercian]] reform in reviving monasticism; a negative example would be the role of the [[Empress Dowager Cixi|Dowager Empress]] in the subjugation of China to European interests). Within [[Nationalism|nationalist]] movements, there has been some tendency to feel that a nation will not survive or prosper without acknowledging one common morality, regardless of its content.

Political morality is also relevant to the behavior internationally of national governments, and to the support they receive from their host population. The [[Sentience Institute]], co-founded by [[Jacy Reese Anthis]], analyzes the trajectory of moral progress in society via the framework of an expanding moral circle.<ref name="introducing">{{cite web|url = https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/blog/introducing-sentience-institute|title = Introducing Sentience Institute|date = 2 June 2017|access-date = 2019-08-05|publisher = [[Sentience Institute]]}}</ref> [[Noam Chomsky]] states that
<blockquote>... if we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil.

In fact, one of them, maybe the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something's right for me, it's right for you; if it's wrong for you, it's wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has that at its core somehow.<ref name="Zmag">{{cite web |url=http://www.znetwork.org/znet/viewArticle/11934 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20130113102044/http://www.znetwork.org/znet/viewArticle/11934 |url-status=dead |archive-date=2013-01-13 |title=Terror and Just Response |publisher=ZNet |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |date=2002-07-02 }}</ref></blockquote>