Binding Morality and Perceived Harm as Sources of Moral Regulation Law Support Among Political and Religious Conservatives

Abstract

Conservatives—both political and religious—are more likely than liberals to support laws regulating traditional or religious morality. The current study applies a moral psychological framework to argue that the association between conservatism and moral regulation law support can be explained in part by binding morality, or a moral orientation that privileges group needs above individual needs and includes concerns about absolutism, collectivism, and purity. Binding morality may directly promote support for moral regulation laws, which enforce traditional rules, discourage deviance, and require adherence to customs regarding bodily and spiritual purity. Binding morality may also indirectly promote support for moral regulation laws by motivating perceptions that “immoral” behaviors are harmful to innocent victims. I test these hypotheses using three analytic samples drawn from the General Social Survey (N = 3669, 7120, 369). Results show that, as expected, binding morality (especially purity) mediates the effects of political and religious conservatism on laws regulating pornography, marijuana, abortion, and euthanasia. Additional analyses exploring views about pornography show that binding morality (especially collectivism) is associated with perceptions of immorality as harmful, which in turn is associated with support for regulation.

Why Men (Don’t) Buy Sex: Purity Moralization and Perceived Harm as Constraints on Prostitution Offending

“…Insofar as traditional norms of sexual morality in the United States condemn prostitution and sex buying (Cao et al, 2015;Cao & Maguire, 2013), and characterize sex sellers and sex buyers alike as wanton and impure (Hammond, 2015;Hubbard & Colosi, 2015;Sanders et al, 2017;Weitzer, 2007), the moralization of purity may be especially likely to produce intuitions that sex buying is wrong, and in turn, perceptions that sex buying is harmful to suffering victims. Consistent with this possibility, research indicates that the moralization of purity is associated with less acceptance of prostitution (J. R. Silver, 2017) as well as other practices that violate norms of traditional sexual morality (Haidt, 2012;Horberg et al, 2009;Koleva et al, 2012;J. R. Silver, 2020).…”

“…As important, researchers to date have largely neglected the potential role of moral concerns in prostitution offending. This is particularly surprising because there is evidence that morality is a powerful constraint on other types of crime (Antonaccio & Tittle, 2008;Pauwels et al, 2018; J. R. Silver & Silver, 2020), and because sex purchasing has long been characterized as an offense against traditional sexual morality (Cao & Maguire, 2013).…”

The sanctity of life: The role of purity in attitudes towards abortion and euthanasia

“…However, examination of anti‐abortion and euthanasia rhetoric tells a different story, often suggesting that conservative opposition is motivated by underlying concerns for the vulnerable—a position that includes conceptualising the preborn as human (MacInnis et al, 2014 ). Notably, such discourse is often accompanied by paternalistic stereotypes that portray women who seek abortions as victims who need to be “saved” from their own decisions (see Pizzarossa, 2019 ; Silver, 2020 ).…”

“…For example, anti‐abortion activists often frame the decision to terminate a pregnancy as a stain on one's spiritual purity through violation of sacred law or the “natural” order (Jelen, 2014 ). Similarly, euthanasia, despite lacking a personal victim, is seen as violating traditional norms surrounding spiritual purity (Silver, 2020 ). As such, we hypothesized that the moral foundation of purity/sanctity would correlate negatively with support for both forms of abortion and euthanasia.…”

“…For example, Deak and Saroglou ( 2015 ) situated the debate within a moral foundations framework and showed that, rather than being associated with the care‐based “individualising” moral foundations of harm and fairness, opposition to euthanasia and abortion is based in the “binding” moral foundations of loyalty, authority and purity (Graham & Haidt, 2010 ). Silver ( 2020 ) similarly argued that conservative opposition to abortion and euthanasia was rooted in adherence to a binding moral framework that prioritises moral absolutism and group norms over individual needs. Thus, moral opposition to abortion and euthanasia appears to be a matter of preventing the violation of group norms, rather than protecting the well‐being of those involved.…”