Outraged

1. Humans evolved as prey, not predators, shaping our fear-based nature.

For millions of years of our evolution, our species could throw only sharpened sticks, which were neither very straight nor very heavy.

Ancient vulnerability. Contrary to the "killer ape" myth, early humans were more hunted than hunters. Lacking fangs, claws, speed, or strength, our ancestors were vulnerable to large predators like saber-toothed cats, giant hyenas, and even massive eagles. Evidence suggests early hominids were preyed upon at rates similar to other grazing species.

Physical limitations. Our physical adaptations, like bipedalism and throwing ability, were initially more useful for avoiding predators and scavenging than for bringing down large game. Throwing sharpened sticks was ineffective against thick hides, and endurance running in savanna woodlands made us vulnerable to faster, more powerful carnivores. Our bodies are built for vigilance and escape.

Legacy of fear. This long history as a prey species hardwired our minds for threat detection. Even in today's safe world, we remain vigilant for danger. This innate fear, rather than predatory aggression, is a fundamental aspect of human nature, influencing our behavior and perceptions of the world.

2. Group living and morality arose to protect us from threats, both animal and human.

Humans needed a way to live together in relative harmony—a system that encouraged people to suppress their most violent and selfish impulses. Humans needed morality.

Safety in numbers. As a physically weak species, forming large groups was a crucial survival strategy against predators. Group living offered dilution of risk, confusion for attackers, and more eyes for detection, catalyzed by the evolution of our large social brains and language.

New social threats. However, living in groups introduced new dangers:

• Free riders exploiting others' labor.
• Megalomaniacal leaders hoarding resources.
• Interpersonal violence (ancient homicide rates were ~2%, much higher than today).

Morality as protection. Morality emerged as a social contract to manage these internal threats. It's a set of norms encouraging cooperation and discouraging selfishness and aggression, ultimately protecting individuals and the group from harm and chaos.

3. Increased safety leads to "concept creep," making minor harms seem significant.

As our environment becomes safer, we broaden our concept of what counts as harmful.

The safety transition. Modern society is vastly safer than any point in history due to advances in medicine, technology, and social policies. Death rates from disease, natural disasters, and violence have plummeted.

Vigilance persists. Despite this objective safety, our evolutionarily wired minds remain vigilant for threats. This constant motivation to detect danger, combined with the reduced prevalence of severe harms, causes "concept creep."

Expanding definitions. Harm-related concepts like abuse, trauma, and bullying expand to include less severe instances. For example:

• Abuse: From physical assault to letting a child walk home alone.
• Trauma: From surviving a massacre to being publicly scolded.
• Bullying: From physical beats to mean comments.

This phenomenon explains why, even in a safer world, we perceive danger everywhere and feel compelled to protect ourselves from increasingly subtle threats.

4. All moral judgments are based on intuitive perceptions of harm, not separate foundations.

How much people condemn an act is based on how much an act intuitively seems (or feels) harmful.

Harm as the core. While morality evolved to address various threats (disloyalty, disrespect, impurity), the psychological mechanism driving moral judgment today is a single, intuitive perception of harm. People condemn acts based on how much they feel victimizing.

Intuitive, not reasoned. Perceptions of harm are not reasoned rationalizations but quick, gut feelings. Like the intuitive fear of heights on a safe skywalk, the feeling of harm persists even when an act is "objectively" harmless.

A continuum of harm. Harm is perceived along a gradient, not as simply present or absent. Acts are judged more or less immoral based on how much they intuitively seem more or less harmful, from minor slights to severe violence.

5. "Harmless wrongs" are a myth; people intuitively perceive harm in them.

Psychologically speaking, no one sees it as a harmless wrong.

The challenge to harm. The concept of "harmless wrongs," like consensual incest or eating chicken after a funeral (in some cultures), was used to argue that some moral judgments are disconnected from harm. However, this view assumes harm is objective.

Subjective perception. Harm, like morality, is subjective and perceived through cultural lenses and personal assumptions. What seems harmless to one person (e.g., a secular Westerner) may seem harmful to another (e.g., a Hindu Brahman who believes it harms the soul).

Intuitive harm persists. Studies show people intuitively perceive harm in "objectively harmless" acts, especially under time pressure which inhibits reasoning. This suggests that our gut feeling registers potential harm, even if our rational mind dismisses it.

6. Political differences stem from different assumptions about who is vulnerable.

People disagree not because they have over- or underdeveloped mental mechanisms but because they see harm in different ways.

Shared moral mind. Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral mind, both motivated to protect the vulnerable from suffering.

Divergent perceptions. Political disagreements arise because they have different assumptions about who or what is especially vulnerable to harm, mistreatment, and victimization. These "Assumptions of Vulnerability" (AoVs) shape their moral judgments on contentious issues.

Trade-offs in protection. Hot-button issues involve trade-offs about harm, and different AoVs lead to prioritizing different groups for protection. For example:

• Abortion: Vulnerability of fetus vs. mother.
• Immigration: Vulnerability of immigrants vs. citizens.
• Taxation: Harm of taking money vs. harm of failing to help the poor.

Understanding these differing perceptions of vulnerability provides a more parsimonious explanation for political divides than positing separate moral mechanisms.

7. Liberals and conservatives have distinct patterns of perceiving vulnerability.

Compared with conservatives, liberals have higher AoVs about the Environment and lower AoVs about the Divine... Compared with liberals, conservatives have lower AoVs about the Othered and higher AoVs about the Powerful.

Four key clusters. Political differences in AoVs are particularly pronounced across four clusters of entities:

• The Environment (e.g., planet Earth)
• The Divine (e.g., God)
• The Powerful (e.g., state troopers)
• The Othered (e.g., undocumented immigrants)

Amplifying vs. dampening. Liberals tend to amplify differences in vulnerability, seeing the Othered and Environment as highly vulnerable and the Powerful and Divine as less so. Conservatives tend to dampen these differences, seeing all groups as relatively similar in vulnerability.

Explaining narratives. This difference in AoVs explains core political narratives:

• Liberals: Society is structured by inequality between vulnerable oppressed groups (Othered, Environment) and invulnerable oppressors (Powerful).
• Conservatives: Society is a contract between individuals, all capable of being victims or victimizers, emphasizing personal responsibility.

These differing perceptions of who needs protection drive moral stances on issues like social justice, environmental policy, and the role of authority.

8. Moral typecasting simplifies people into pure victims or pure villains.

Instead of shades of gray, we try to simplify the moral world into a tidy diorama of black and white.

Either-or heuristic. Our minds use a cognitive shortcut, moral typecasting, to simplify complex moral situations. We tend to see people as either 100% blameless victims or 100% invulnerable villains, ignoring the reality that most people are a mix.

Consequences of typecasting:

• Victims escape blame: Suffering past harm makes people seem less responsible for current wrongdoing.
• Villains' pain is ignored: Perpetrating harm makes people seem less capable of suffering.

Distorting reality. This black-and-white thinking distorts our perception of individuals and groups, making nuanced understanding difficult. It fuels dehumanization and prevents us from seeing the full humanity in those we disagree with.

9. Egocentrism makes our own suffering seem most obvious, fueling competitive victimhood.

The obviousness of our own suffering makes people easily see themselves as victims.

Self-focused minds. Humans are fundamentally egocentric; our own experiences, especially pain and negative emotions, feel overwhelmingly real and capture our attention. This makes our own suffering seem self-evident and paramount.

Pain's power. Physical and emotional pain are powerful negative signals that make us doubly egocentric, hindering our ability to take others' perspectives or appreciate their suffering.

Competitive victimhood. In conflicts, egocentrism leads groups to focus on their own side's pain, amplifying their victimhood while denying the suffering of the other side. This competition for victim status escalates conflict and justifies aggression.

10. Facts do not bridge moral divides; they are easily dismissed or reinterpreted.

Facts fail to foster respect in political discussions because our moral beliefs are based on intuitions of harm, not objective evidence.

Enlightenment legacy. While facts are essential for science and policy, our intuition that they bridge moral divides is often wrong. This belief stems from the Enlightenment's emphasis on reason and objectivity.

Moral truth differs. Moral convictions are rooted in intuitive perceptions of harm and subjective assumptions, not objective facts. Presenting statistics often fails to change minds or foster respect because:

• Facts can be disputed or seen as irrelevant.
• People find "data" to support their existing beliefs (confirmation bias).
• Moral issues involve trade-offs about perceived harms, not objective truths.

Ineffective strategy. Relying solely on facts in moral disagreements can feel like an attack, reinforcing the perception of the other side as irrational or biased, rather than building understanding.

11. Sharing personal stories of harm humanizes opponents and fosters respect.

Compared with emphasizing facts, sharing personal stories about harm better bridged divides.

Stories resonate. Humans are storytelling animals; narratives, especially those involving harm, resonate deeply with our evolved minds. Stories make abstract concepts relatable and emotionally compelling.

Humanizing power. Sharing personal experiences of suffering makes people seem more human—both rational (it's rational to avoid harm) and vulnerable (they can be hurt). This combats dehumanization and encourages empathy.

Empirical evidence. Studies show that grounding moral positions in personal stories of harm, compared to facts:

• Increases perceptions of rationality and respect for opponents.
• Decreases dehumanization.
• Fosters a greater willingness to interact across divides.

Stories of harm provide the right kind of truth for moral conversations, connecting with our shared intuitive understanding of suffering.

12. Bridging divides requires connecting, inviting, and validating perspectives.

For better discussions about morality and politics we need to connect, invite, and validate, which together spell “civ,” the first three letters of “civil,” which is how our conversations should be.

Overcoming the paradox. Opening up is hard, but essential for bridging divides. Creating psychological safety allows for vulnerability. Three steps, summarized by "CIV," can help:

Connect: Build a human relationship beyond political labels.

• Start with nonpolitical small talk.
• Ask deep questions about their life, hopes, and beliefs.
• Listen actively to understand their perspective.

Invite: Offer them a chance to share their views.

• Use invitational language ("Can I ask you about something?").
• Clearly state your purpose is understanding, not persuasion.

Validate: Acknowledge their perspective and intentions.

• Recognize that their convictions are genuinely held and rooted in a desire to protect.
• Share how their story or perspective affected you, using "I" statements.
• Acknowledge complexity and potential shared concerns about harm.

These steps foster moral humility, helping us see others as complex individuals, not caricatures, and recognizing that disagreement can coexist with shared humanity.

Last updated: June 1, 2025