Mechanisms of Morality

Abstract

Humanitarian interventions (HIs) are a common aspect of US foreign policy. Policy makers acknowledge the importance of public support for interventions, but scholars remain divided about the extent and basis of that support. Using a series of survey experiments, we evaluate attitudes about HIs, assess whether the public supports these interventions for instrumental or moral reasons, and test which aspects of morality are most salient. The findings indicate that interventions addressing humanitarian crises boost public support, with the basis of that support residing primarily in normative contentions that the United States has a moral obligation to protect civilians. This research advances understandings of morality in foreign policy, mediates debates about the determinants of public attitudes—including when the public makes moral rather than prudent decisions about interventions—and has important policy implications. It suggests a morally motivated public may be more likely to support risky HIs, increasing the likelihood of using force.

Limited Spin: When the Public Punishes Leaders Who Lie about Military Action

“…As these factors vary across time and crises, so will the strength of constraints. Most notably, individuals' partisanship shapes a wide range of domestic and foreign policy attitudes (Kreps and Maxey 2018;Kriner and Shen 2015). Partisanship could influence the political costs associated with misinformation in three ways.…”

“…First, individuals' party identification could moderate their sensitivity to misinformation. Republicans consistently report more hawkish attitudes and are willing to support military action under a wider variety of circumstances (Kreps and Maxey 2018;Kriner and Shen 2015). Studies of moral foundations also show that conservatives make decisions based on the foundations of authority and respect that emphasize "the maintenance of social hierarchies to assure social order, highlighting obedience, respect and role fulfillment" (Haidt and Graham 2007;Kertzer et al 2014, 829).…”

The Domestic Sources of International Reputation

“…Kertzer (2016) shows that four specific dispositional attributes influence individuals' willingness to fight: time horizons, risk tolerance, concern with honor, and willpower. Others have identified casualty tolerance, revenge, concern with perceptions, and madness as dispositional attributes that influence sensitivity to the costs of fighting (Brutger and Kertzer 2018;Dafoe and Caughey 2016;Kertzer and Brutger 2016;Kreps and Maxey 2018;McManus 2019;Stein 2019;Yarhi-Milo 2018).…”

How NATO Membership Transforms Public Support for War

“…Estimating the effects of alliances is difficult with historical data because states do not form alliances randomly. We therefore fielded a large-scale preregistered survey experiment (5,6,7) on more than 14,000 voters in 13 NATO countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States), with our sample data reweighted to match key demographic margins from each country's population.…”

“…Alliances could also give rise to moral obligations. Mounting evidence shows that moral considerations influence public thinking about foreign policy (14,15,16,17,18,6,19). Having promised to defend members of the alliance, citizens may feel an ethical duty to act.…”