One of the discussion points between those who believe in a supernatural power and those who do not, is around the need for a set of moral principles. Believers argue that this is something that God gives us. Non-believers look elsewhere. The most obvious place to look is in evolution. Are there ‘universal moral principles’ that we all share that have evolved to ensure that we can coexist across cultures?
A key proponent of the evolutionary perspective is Harvey Whitehouse, a prominent anthropologist known for his work on the cognitive science of religion and group behaviour. One of his significant contributions is the exploration of universal moral principles, which he discusses in the context of “modes of religiosity” and the evolution of social cohesion.
Universal Moral Principles
Whitehouse’s theory suggests that human morality has evolved to support group cohesion, particularly in large, complex societies. He identifies several key principles that seem to be universal across different cultures:
- Fairness and Justice: Across cultures, humans have a deep concern for fairness and justice. This principle manifests in various social norms and legal systems that regulate resource distribution, punish cheating, and ensure that people are treated equitably.
- Harm and Care: The avoidance of harm and the provision of care for others are central to moral systems worldwide. These principles are rooted in our empathy and compassion, which drive us to protect others, especially the vulnerable, from suffering.
- Loyalty and Group Solidarity: Loyalty to one’s group and a strong sense of solidarity are also universal. This principle underpins the social bonds that keep groups together, fostering cooperation and collective action. Whitehouse links this to his “modes of religiosity” theory, particularly the “imagistic mode,” which involves intense, emotionally charged rituals that reinforce group identity and loyalty.
- Authority and Respect: Respect for authority and the maintenance of social hierarchies are found in every society. These principles help structure social order, ensuring stability and the coordination of collective efforts.
- Purity and Sanctity: Concerns about purity, whether physical, moral, or spiritual, are prevalent across cultures. These norms often regulate behaviour related to food, sex, and bodily functions, reflecting a broader concern for maintaining the sanctity of the community or the individual.
Evolutionary Basis
Whitehouse argues that these principles are not random but have evolved to address specific social and ecological challenges. As human societies grew in size and complexity, these moral principles helped to ensure cooperation among large groups of unrelated individuals, which was crucial for survival and success. Whitehouse’s work suggests that these principles are embedded in human cognition, making them nearly universal, though their expression can vary depending on cultural context.
How does Whitehouse explain the behaviour of individuals and communities that treat others cruelly, with contempt, and against established legal and international norms?
In particular, how do his theories help us interpret the behaviour of the Israeli government towards the Palestinians?
When it comes to explaining behaviour that is cruel, contemptuous, or in violation of established norms, Whitehouse’s theories can offer some insights, though they are nuanced and require an understanding of how moral principles can be selectively applied or overridden by other psychological and social forces.
1. Group Identity and Loyalty
Whitehouse emphasises the importance of group identity and loyalty in human behaviour. These principles, while generally fostering cooperation within a group, can lead to hostility towards out-groups. When individuals and communities perceive others as threats to their group’s survival, resources, or identity, they may justify cruel and contemptuous behaviour as necessary for protecting their in-group. This can result in actions that, while morally reprehensible on a universal scale, are viewed as legitimate or even morally obligatory within the group context.
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both sides have strong, deeply rooted identities that are tied to historical narratives, religious beliefs, and territorial claims. For many Israelis, the establishment and defence of the State of Israel are seen as existential imperatives, rooted in the historical experiences of persecution, including the Holocaust. This sense of a threatened group identity can lead to actions aimed at protecting the in-group (Israelis) even if it means acting against the interests of the out-group (Palestinians).
In this context, actions that might otherwise be seen as unjust or cruel, such as military operations, settlements in disputed territories, or restrictions on Palestinian movement, can be justified within the Israeli group narrative as necessary for the survival and security of the Jewish state.
2. Moral Disengagement and Dehumanisation
Whitehouse’s work can be linked to concepts like moral disengagement and dehumanisation, where individuals or groups selectively disengage from universal moral principles to justify harmful actions. This is particularly relevant in scenarios where people are treated with contempt or cruelty. By dehumanising the out-group, seeing them as less than human or as fundamentally different, individuals can bypass their natural empathetic responses and justify behaviour that violates established norms.
In conflict situations, there can be a tendency to view the other side not as individuals with rights and humanity, but as a monolithic threat. This process can lead to the dehumanisation of Palestinians, where their suffering is minimised or justified in the context of broader security concerns.
This dehumanisation allows for the bypassing of universal moral principles, such as care and fairness, and the justification of actions that might otherwise be seen as violations of human rights or international norms.
3. Rituals and Extremism
Whitehouse’s theory of “modes of religiosity” also plays a role here. The “imagistic mode” involves intense rituals that create strong group bonds through shared emotional experiences. While these rituals can foster group solidarity, they can also lead to extremism. In extreme cases, the intense loyalty and identity formed through such rituals can result in a willingness to violate broader moral and legal norms if it serves the group’s interests. This is seen in extremist groups where violence and cruelty are justified as necessary sacrifices for the greater good of the group.
4. Moral Flexibility and Context Dependence
Whitehouse’s view acknowledges that moral principles, while universal in some respects, are highly flexible and context-dependent. People often apply moral principles selectively, depending on the situation and their group’s perceived needs. In times of conflict, scarcity, or crisis, moral principles like fairness and care may be overridden by the perceived necessity to protect the in-group or to ensure survival, leading to actions that are cruel or unjust by broader standards.
In times of heightened tension or perceived threats, moral principles that might ordinarily constrain behaviour, such as fairness or the prohibition of harm, can be relaxed. This moral flexibility allows for a wider range of actions to be justified in the name of security or survival.
For instance, during periods of conflict, such as wars or intifadas, actions that result in significant Palestinian suffering may be rationalised as unfortunate but necessary measures to protect Israeli lives and interests. The context of an ongoing, protracted conflict allows for moral justifications that might not hold in peacetime or under different circumstances.
5. Authority and Ideology
Whitehouse also notes the role of authority and ideology in shaping moral behaviour. When authoritative figures or dominant ideologies within a community justify or endorse cruelty and contempt, individuals are more likely to follow these cues, even if they contradict broader moral norms. The respect for authority, combined with group loyalty, can lead people to commit or condone actions they might otherwise find unacceptable.
In Israel, government policies and military actions are often framed within a narrative of self-defence and national security, which is reinforced by authoritative figures and institutions. When these policies are justified by leaders and supported by significant portions of the population, they gain legitimacy, even if they involve actions that are contested internationally or seen as oppressive by Palestinians.
The ideological framework that supports the idea of a Jewish state in the historic land of Israel further complicates the situation. This ideology can contribute to actions that prioritise Jewish settlement and sovereignty, sometimes at the expense of Palestinian rights and claims, and these actions are often justified within the framework of defending the in-group’s historical and religious ties to the land.
Whitehouse’s framework provides a lens through which to understand why individuals and communities may act cruelly or contemptuously, even when such actions violate legal and international norms. It highlights the powerful influence of group identity, loyalty, and the context in which moral decisions are made. When people feel that their group’s survival or identity is at stake, they may selectively apply moral principles or disengage from them altogether, leading to behaviour that appears cruel or immoral from an outside perspective but is justified within their own moral framework.
On the basis of these principles, what would be the best strategy to intervene in an escalating international conflict between Israel and the Muslim countries (including Palestine)?
Academics, especially those in the humanities, are often accused of not offering practical solutions to problems, so here are a few observations on ways of attempting to move this conflict forward. Intervening in an escalating international conflict, particularly one as complex and deeply rooted as the conflict between Israel and Muslim countries (including Palestine), requires a strategy informed by a deep understanding of the psychological and social dynamics at play. Based on Harvey Whitehouse’s principles, a successful intervention strategy would need to address the underlying group identities, moral disengagement, and the role of authority and ideology. Here’s how these principles could inform a strategic approach:
1. Promote Inclusive Group Identity and Shared Humanity
- Strategy: Efforts should focus on fostering a broader, more inclusive group identity that transcends the current divisions. Initiatives that highlight shared values, human rights, and common goals between Israelis, Palestinians, and neighbouring Muslim countries could reduce the perception of in-group versus out-group, making it harder for parties to justify violence against each other.
- Implementation: Cultural exchange programs, joint economic projects, and collaborative peace-building initiatives that bring together people from different sides of the conflict can help create a shared identity. Public campaigns that humanise the “other” and emphasize common humanity can also play a crucial role.
2. Counter Moral Disengagement and Dehumanisation
- Strategy: Interventions should aim to counter the narratives that lead to moral disengagement and dehumanisation. This could involve media campaigns, education, and dialogue initiatives that challenge stereotypes and promote empathy.
- Implementation: Media platforms and educational institutions should be leveraged to present stories of suffering and resilience from all sides of the conflict, showing the human cost of the violence. Encouraging influential figures (religious leaders, celebrities, intellectuals) to speak out against dehumanisation can help shift public opinion.
3. Empower Moderate Authorities and Ideologies
- Strategy: Support for moderate leaders and ideologies that promote peace and coexistence is crucial. International actors should work to strengthen the influence of voices that advocate for non-violence and dialogue.
- Implementation: Providing political, economic, and moral support to moderate leaders in both Israel and the Muslim countries can help them gain traction. This might include diplomatic backing, funding for peace-building initiatives, and public endorsements. Additionally, offering platforms for moderate voices to be heard internationally can counterbalance more extreme rhetoric.
4. Encourage Contextual Moral Reasoning
- Strategy: Create environments where parties are encouraged to apply moral principles like fairness, care, and justice in more flexible and context-aware ways. This can be achieved by facilitating dialogue where both sides articulate their fears, needs, and values in a safe environment.
- Implementation: Initiating and supporting dialogues that allow all parties to express their grievances and fears can lead to more nuanced understanding and compromise. This could be achieved through international mediation, peace talks, and grassroots dialogue initiatives. Emphasizing shared moral frameworks, such as international human rights, can provide common ground.
5. Leverage International Norms and Legal Frameworks
- Strategy: International norms and legal frameworks should be used to guide the behaviour of the parties involved. By aligning intervention strategies with established international norms, such as human rights conventions, the intervention can gain legitimacy and moral authority.
- Implementation: Diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, and incentives should be used in line with international law to encourage compliance with peace agreements and discourage violations. International bodies like the United Nations could play a crucial role in monitoring compliance and providing neutral platforms for negotiation.
6. Support Long-Term Peace Education and Reconciliation
- Strategy: Long-term efforts must focus on education and reconciliation to prevent future conflicts. Peace education that instills values of tolerance, empathy, and non-violence is essential for building a sustainable peace.
- Implementation: Developing and implementing educational curricula that teach conflict resolution, the history of the conflict from multiple perspectives, and the importance of peace can help future generations avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Additionally, reconciliation programs that bring together victims from both sides to share their stories can help heal the deep wounds caused by the conflict.