(Note: this is a revised version of an old post)
Jonathan Haidt defined moral emotions as “those emotions that are linked to the interests or welfare either of society as a whole or at least of persons other than the judge or agent.” Moral emotions motivate people to do good and to avoid doing bad. Let’s grant that moral emotions are a good thing. But is more of a good thing even better? And does feeling a moral emotion less intensely mean one:
…is less moral?
…has the wrong values?
…cares less about the moral issues?
…is less effective at addressing the moral issues?
Answer: not necessarily.
The Moral Good is what the moral emotion wants. The Moral Good is an outcome, a thing that happens in the world. A moral emotion wants something to happen. What if the thing it wants to happen is in a zero-sum relationship with what other moral emotions want? If Moral Goods require resources in limited supply and these resources have alternative uses that are also Moral Goods, well then, you can’t have everything. In other words, you can’t have the optimal amount of all Moral Goods. You can’t achieve your Moral Goods all at once. You’ve got to budget, save, and prioritize.
Something to ponder: is achieving some of the Moral Good now better than achieving more of the Moral Good later? Given that increasingly later is increasingly uncertain, at what point of later/uncertainty should one just say “screw it” and commit to action? (The answer, as always: it depends).
What I’m getting at: feelings don't impress me; results do. Strong emotion gets in the way of hard thinking. When it comes to public policy and legislation, compassion serves best when put on ice. And moral outrage is left at the door.
—
References:
Haidt J (2003) The moral emotions. In: Davidson JR, Scherer KR, Goldsmith HH (eds) Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior. Annual review of psychology, 58, 345–372.