Liberals and Conservatives See Different Victims: Moral Disagreement Is Explained by Different Assumptions of Vulnerability

Moral disagreement across politics revolves around the key question, "Who is a victim?" Twelve studies explain moral conflict with <i>assumptions of vulnerability (AoVs)</i>: liberals and conservatives disagree about who is especially vulnerable to victimization, harm, and mistreatment. AoVs predict moral judgments, implicit attitudes, and charitable behavior-and explain the link between ideology and moral judgment (usually better than moral foundations). Four clusters of targets-the Environment, the Othered, the Powerful, and the Divine-explain many political debates, from immigration and policing to religion and racism. In general, liberals see vulnerability as group-based, dividing the moral world into groups of vulnerable victims and invulnerable oppressors. Conservatives downplay group-based differences, seeing vulnerability as more individual and evenly distributed. AoVs can be experimentally manipulated and causally impact moral evaluations. These results support a universal harm-based moral mind (Theory of Dyadic Morality): moral disagreement reflects different understandings of harm, not different foundations.