Shared Morality May Help Reduce Hate and Corruption While Securing Our Future

(Illustrative Only
Eagle Eye, the Northern Star,
and Basic Societal Values.)

Representing the morality,
morals, codes, oaths and the very
purpose of our existence through
the generations. Some
have given up everything to do
the right thing and some
will always protect wrongdoing.
Who we choose to lead us
will determine our futures. 

Vote your conscious and be
your own person. 

 Let us continue exploring hate and corruption through the learning Story of the Clan. In the story, a group of people spread hateful rumors to benefit themselves socially and financially. Over time, the situation grew worse as some corrupt officials misused taxpayer resources to target people they disliked, including those with different political views or those who spoke out against corruption such as whistleblowers. This pattern continued for years. Eventually the situation had an opportunity to be corrected, but only after significant struggle to uphold shared values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to pursue happiness. The victims upheld their oaths while a minority of officials undermined theirs (The clan courts gave good old boy free passes and struggled to understand the essence and purpose of law. Even confusing the prupose of the institution.). In practice, these values sometimes became subjective depending on who benefited and who was harmed, suggesting that the system still has room for improvement.

 ( Shhhh Don't say that too loudly. You could go on a list for extremist targeting. 😕🤷).

In the story, the turning point came from the many public officials who honored their oaths and acted with integrity became tired of open protection for corruption and the large group of victims this network created (This is proof most are good people and enhancing policing by removing bad apples is needed. Politicians and their hand picked "yes men" may give cover to criminal wrongdoing.). What nearly undermined the system, however, were a few corrupt individuals who abused power and targeted minorities and others in the community. Some were eventually caught engaging in wrongdoing, though a few received lenient outcomes, again highlighting weaknesses in the system.

An unwritten pattern seemed to emerge: quick to harm and slow to correct. Policies and procedures were originally designed to create protections, but they could be manipulated by individuals or groups with agendas. From a systems perspective, this suggests the need to review and improve policies so that they better serve the public good and prevent misuse. While they may mostly work ok someone with knowledge can navigate them indicating long-term corruption and many other unknown victims (False information and fake investigations).

The research below adds an interesting perspective. It suggests that groups organized around shared moral values are not necessarily the ones most likely to harm others. While people sometimes misuse religion or politics to justify harmful actions, the study indicates that shared moral beliefs alone do not automatically lead to hostility toward other groups. Perhaps one could say shared moral values strengthen the system (Some officials will struggle with why we say these oaths and make pledges.)

This raises an important philosophical question. What happens when societies anchor themselves in shared values such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the principles found in the Bill of Rights? Ideally, these values encourage people to support their own communities while still respecting the rights of others. Can it lead to greater economic and social growth as people improve interaction, movement of information, business dealings, social engagement, etc.? Or is cohesion a wasted idea only talked about by poets and dreamers?

From this perspective, when individuals or groups harm others, it may indicate a disconnect from those shared values. It raises questions about where loyalties lie—whether with the broader public good or with narrower interests such as personal networks, partisan loyalty, or the protection of corruption. Regardless of a person’s role—whether a judge, public official, a politician or private citizen—misusing systems of power suggests the need for continued reflection and striving for the next rung of development. 

Feel free to make your own opinion and that is fine as long as you took a minute to think about it and don't harm others. This hypothetical, philosophical, thought experiment is designed to encourage you think and delve into possibilities. It is you who must determine whether something deeper is sparked in your moral conscous. You will then be free to vote that conscious. 

"He who knows others is wise; he who knows himself is enlightened." — Lao Tzu

Helping the ingroup versus harming the outgroup: Evidence from morality-based groups

• The study examines when preference for one’s own group leads to harming another group.

• Earlier research using real social groups suggested that groups based on shared moral beliefs may increase hostility toward outgroups.

• This study used artificial groups in three experiments to remove the effects of past conflict or polarization.

• Participants played the Intergroup Parochial and Universal Cooperation (IPUC) game, which allowed them to choose between helping themselves, helping their group, harming another group, or helping both groups.

• Results showed that morality-based groups displayed less selfish behavior and more cooperation overall.

• There was some increase in helping the ingroup, mainly because participants expected their own group members to cooperate.

• The study did not find evidence that morality-based group membership increased harm toward outgroups.

• The findings suggest that shared moral beliefs alone do not necessarily lead to hostility toward other groups.

Grigoryan, L., Seo, S., Simunovic, D., & Hofmann, W. (2022). Helping the ingroup versus harming the outgroup: Evidence from morality-based groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 103, 104436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104436