Framing Your Message Effectively with the Moral Foundations Theory

The care/harm foundation is rooted in our evolutionary need to protect and nurture others, particularly those who are vulnerable or in need. This foundation emphasizes empathy, compassion, and avoidance of suffering. 

In liberal ideologies, care/harm is often expressed through advocacy for social justice, welfare programs, and humanitarian efforts. For example, policy messages that highlight the plight of refugees, or the suffering caused by economic inequality, resonate deeply with liberal audiences by invoking their care-based moral instincts. In contrast, messages that appeal to conservatives might emphasize care within a more defined in-group, such as the community or nation, focusing on supporting veterans, law enforcement, or the unborn in anti-abortion rhetoric. Research shows that liberal individuals tend to prioritize the care/harm foundation more than conservatives, who may balance it with other moral concerns.

The fairness/cheating foundation is centered on justice, equality, and reciprocity. It is concerned with ensuring fair treatment, proportional rewards, and punishment for wrongdoers. 

In liberal contexts, fairness is often equated with equality and social justice, advocating for policies like progressive taxation, affirmative action, and equal rights movements. Conservative interpretations of fairness might focus on proportionality and meritocracy, emphasizing the importance of personal responsibility and the belief that rewards should correspond to effort and contribution.

Research indicates that both liberals and conservatives value fairness but interpret it differently based on their ideological leanings. Policy messages that frame issues in terms of cheating or exploitation (e.g., corporate malfeasance, tax evasion by the wealthy) can galvanize liberal audiences, while stories emphasizing personal achievement and fair rewards can resonate with conservative values.

The loyalty/betrayal foundation is about allegiance, group solidarity, and loyalty to one’s in-group, whether it be family, community, or nation. 

Conservatives typically place a higher value on loyalty, which is reflected in their emphasis on patriotism, family values, and community cohesion. The are, in turn, more likely to respond to policy messages that highlight loyalty and depict betrayal negatively, such as narratives about immigrants’ integration into the national fabric or politicians’ betrayal of public trust. Liberal audiences, while not dismissive of loyalty, may prioritize broader, more inclusive notions of loyalty that extend to global or diverse communities and might be moved by messages that promote loyalty to humanity at large, advocating for international aid or global environmental responsibility. 

The authority/subversion foundation deals with respect for tradition, authority, and social hierarchies. It values order, stability, and respect for leadership. 

Conservatives generally uphold this foundation strongly, valuing traditional institutions like the military, religious organizations, and the rule of law. Liberals, on the other hand, are more likely to question and challenge authority, promoting progressive changes and questioning established norms. 

Research shows that conservatives are more responsive to policy messages that respect and uphold traditional authority figures and institutions while stories that portray defiance against oppressive systems or call for radical change may appeal more to liberal audiences, aligning with their critical view of authority and preference for reform. 

The sanctity/degradation foundation is concerned with purity, sacredness, and the avoidance of contamination or degradation. This can pertain to physical health, spiritual well-being, and moral integrity. 

Conservatives often emphasize sanctity in the context of religious beliefs, sexual purity, and reverence for the body and the environment. Liberals might focus on sanctity regarding environmentalism, advocating for the sanctity of nature, and personal health. 

Conservatives are more likely to resonate with policy messages that emphasize moral and physical purity, such as anti-abortion stories, opposition to drug use, and support for traditional marriage. Meanwhile, liberals might be drawn to messages that highlight the degradation of the environment or the sanctity of personal freedoms and bodily autonomy. 

The liberty/oppression foundation values individual freedom and autonomy and opposes tyranny and oppression. It champions the rights of individuals to live free from undue control. 

Both liberals and conservatives value liberty but often focus on different aspects. Liberals tend to emphasize freedom from social and economic oppression, advocating for civil rights, gender equality, and workers’ rights. Conservatives tend to focus on freedom from government overreach, championing individual liberties, free markets, and gun rights. 

Policy messages that depict individuals or groups overcoming oppression resonate strongly with liberal audiences, particularly those that highlight social justice and human rights struggles. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to respond to messages that emphasize personal freedom and resistance to government encroachment, such as opposition to excessive regulation or advocacy for Second Amendment rights. 

In their op-ed, Tom Inglesby, Anita Cicero, and Marc Lipsitch present a thoughtful and urgent case for stronger oversight of high-risk biological research that could inadvertently trigger a global pandemic. Drawing on their expertise in public health and biosecurity, the authors reflect on the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and previous controversial experiments, such as those involving the genetic engineering of highly contagious avian flu viruses. They argue that despite growing awareness of the potential risks, scientific research involving “pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential” (PEPP) is still insufficiently regulated. 

The authors then praise the U.S. government’s recent efforts to introduce stricter guidelines for PEPP research but caution that the policy still has gaps that need to be addressed. They explain that under the new policy, researchers whose work could create more dangerous pathogens will be required to undergo federal review and secure high-level approval before proceeding. However, as the authors highlight, the policy currently only applies to government-funded research, leaving privately funded studies less restricted. Furthermore, they call for greater transparency, recommending regular public reporting of all proposed research involving PEPP, along with a clear rationale for approving or rejecting such projects. 

Inglesby, Cicero, and Lipsitch stress that the stakes are incredibly high: an accident involving enhanced pathogens could lead to a global pandemic, inflicting unimaginable harm. They also argue that the United States should take a leadership role in encouraging other countries to adopt similar safeguards, given the global nature of biosecurity threats. While the new policy is a step in the right direction, the authors insist that additional measures are necessary to ensure that potentially catastrophic research is carefully scrutinized and controlled. 

The op-ed skillfully employs several moral foundations to argue for stronger oversight of research that could lead to pandemics. At the heart of their argument is the care/harm foundation, which emphasizes the severe potential harm that could arise from poorly regulated scientific experiments involving dangerous pathogens. The authors stress that stronger oversight is essential to protect public health and prevent accidental pandemics that could cause widespread suffering. 

The op-ed also appeals to the authority/subversion foundation, advocating for the establishment of clear rules and strong governmental oversight. The authors argue that proper authority is necessary to regulate dangerous research effectively, ensuring that senior officials are involved in making final decisions on whether such research should proceed. This foundation reinforces the importance of legitimate authority in maintaining public safety and preventing the misuse of scientific innovation.

The fairness/cheating foundation is another key aspect of the op-ed, particularly in the discussion of transparency and potential conflicts of interest. The authors argue that the public has a right to know how research that could potentially cause a pandemic is being overseen. They call for more frequent and detailed reporting on these research projects to ensure that no one can circumvent the system to conduct dangerous work without proper scrutiny. 

In sum, the op-ed combines the care/arm, authority/subversion, and fairness/cheating foundations to construct a persuasive argument for stronger oversight of pandemic-related research. This framing positions the issue as not only one of scientific and public health necessity but also of moral responsibility, with the ultimate goal of preventing future pandemics and protecting humanity.

In their op-ed, Joy Buolamwini and Barry Friedman explore the urgent need for greater oversight of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies used by law enforcement agencies. Buolamwini, founder of the Algorithmic Justice League, and Friedman, a law professor, highlight the potential dangers posed by AI tools such as facial recognition, automated license plate readers, and predictive policing systems. These technologies, they argue, have already led to several wrongful arrests and disproportionately harm marginalized communities, particularly people of color. 

The op-ed begins by acknowledging the progress made by the federal government, particularly the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in proposing new guidelines to regulate the use of AI by federal agencies, including law enforcement. At the same time, the authors express concern over the gaps in these proposed guidelines. They argue that allowing waivers for certain AI technologies, especially when law enforcement claims such tools are essential to their operations, undermines the intent of the regulations. The authors contend that law enforcement agencies should be required to provide verifiable evidence that these AI tools “will not cause harm, worsen discrimination or violate people’s rights” before being deployed. 

Buolamwini and Friedman illustrate the real-world consequences of unchecked AI use in law enforcement by referencing several cases where individuals, including Porcha Woodruff and Robert Julian-Borchak Williams, were wrongfully arrested due to errors in facial recognition systems. They stress that such tools often exacerbate racial bias, noting that studies have found these technologies are more likely to misidentify people with darker skin. As a result, AI systems perpetuate systemic discrimination, disproportionately affecting communities of color. 

The authors also highlight the need for transparency and accountability, advocating for a public inventory of AI use by law enforcement agencies and more frequent reporting on the costs and benefits of these technologies. Additionally, they caution against the vague national security exceptions included in the proposed guidelines, which could be exploited to bypass essential civil rights protections. 

Buolamwini and Friedman argue, in conclusion, that while AI technologies may offer benefits, the current framework for their use in law enforcement is insufficiently regulated and poses significant risks to individual rights and public safety. They call on the federal government to close loopholes, increase oversight, and ensure that AI tools used by law enforcement are rigorously tested and carefully monitored to prevent harm. 

Buolamwini and Friedman’s call for tighter regulations on AI in law enforcement is not only a critique of current policies but also a powerful moral argument for safeguarding civil rights in the face of emerging technologies. The authors draw on several moral foundations to advocate for stricter oversight and regulation of AI technologies in law enforcement. The most prominent moral foundation they utilize is care/harm. The authors highlight the real and potential harms caused by AI misuse, particularly against marginalized communities. By referencing examples of wrongful arrests and other societal impacts, they emphasize the need to prevent further harm. This appeal to protect individuals and communities from unjust outcomes is central to their argument for evidence-based deployment and stringent oversight of AI tools. 

Another key moral foundation is fairness/cheating, particularly in the context of bias and discrimination embedded in AI technologies. The authors make the case that AI systems used by law enforcement exacerbate existing racial biases, often leading to unfair treatment of people of color. To ensure fairness, they argue that AI tools must be held to rigorous standards, and any proven discriminatory technology should be discontinued. 

Additionally, the liberty/oppression foundation is subtly present in their concern about AI’s potential to increase surveillance and lead to oppressive policing practices. Without proper regulation, these technologies could disproportionately affect marginalized communities, infringing on civil liberties and personal freedoms. The authors argue that stricter oversight is essential to preventing these risks. This moral framing is designed to resonate with readers who value justice, civil rights, and the ethical use of technology, making their case for reform all the more persuasive.

In his op-ed, Richard Bennett argues that the international community must take a stronger stance against the Taliban’s oppressive policies toward women in Afghanistan. Bennett, a human rights expert, reflects on his visits to Afghanistan and how the situation for women and girls has deteriorated since the Taliban retook power in August 2021. He recounts how, initially, some communities defied the Taliban’s ban on girls’ education, offering hope that progress could be preserved. However, by the time of his return a year later, schools had been shut down, and women had been largely erased from public life. 

Bennett’s central argument is that engaging with the Taliban without addressing their systematic oppression of women is both a moral and strategic failure. He is critical of international efforts, such as the United Nations meetings with the Taliban, that focus on politically neutral issues like fighting narcotics and helping the private sector, while avoiding any discussion of human rights. He stresses that excluding women and Afghan civil society representatives from these conversations “is too high a cost” for the Taliban’s participation. Bennett believes that any engagement with the Taliban must include a demand for the restoration of women’s rights, especially their right to education. 

The author also draws attention to the broader consequences of the Taliban’s policies. He warns that the oppression of women in Afghanistan is not just devastating for the current generation but could also have long-term social consequences. Boys raised in a system that dehumanizes women may grow up to perpetuate this treatment, and the radicalization of Afghan youth could lead to future security concerns that extend beyond the country’s borders. 

Bennett argues that the international community has an obligation to stand with Afghan women, who have continued to resist the Taliban’s oppression, even at great personal risk. He emphasizes that abandoning them would be a grave disservice, stating, “We have an obligation to meet their bravery with increased protection, support and solidarity.” He concludes by urging the United Nations and other international actors not to legitimize the Taliban’s rule unless they commit to reversing their gender policies and restoring women’s rights. 

Bennett’s op-ed goes beyond political critique; it appeals to deeply held moral values to argue against engaging with the Taliban while ignoring their human rights violations. His position is clear: the international community must not legitimize a regime that systematically oppresses women and girls, and any engagement with the Taliban must be contingent upon restoring fundamental rights. 

Bennett uses several moral foundations to frame his argument against the international community’s current approach to the Taliban, particularly regarding women’s rights. The most prominent moral foundation is care/harm. Bennett emphasizes the profound harm inflicted on Afghan women and girls under the Taliban’s rule, highlighting the denial of education, employment, and basic freedoms, along with the mental health crisis and rise in suicides caused by these oppressive policies. He makes the case that the international community has a moral obligation to protect these vulnerable groups from further harm, underscoring the severity of their suffering. 

The fairness/cheating foundation is also central to Bennett’s argument. He asserts that it is fundamentally unfair for the Taliban to deny women and girls their rights while seeking to be treated as a legitimate government. By engaging with the Taliban without demanding accountability for these violations, the international community allows the Taliban to cheat the system, gaining international recognition without adhering to basic human rights standards. 

The liberty/oppression foundation is strongly invoked in Bennett’s critique of the Taliban’s regime. He describes how women and girls have been “virtually erased from public life” and are trapped in a system that dehumanizes them and severely restricts their freedoms. By framing the Taliban’s policies as a form of gender apartheid, Bennett argues that the international community must actively resist legitimizing such oppressive governance. 

Bennett also appeals to the authority/subversion foundation by criticizing international actors like the United Nations for allowing the Taliban to participate in discussions without addressing their human rights abuses. He argues that the Taliban should not be treated as a legitimate government and that their inclusion without conditions undermines the authority of international law and the principles of human rights. This challenge to the authority of global institutions reinforces the need for stronger, principled leadership. 

Finally, the loyalty/betrayal foundation is reflected in Bennett’s appeal to the international community’s duty to stand with Afghan women and girls. He argues that abandoning them to the Taliban’s rule would be a betrayal of the principles of human rights and justice that the international community claims to uphold. Additionally, he criticizes the exclusion of non-Taliban Afghans from the political process, viewing it as a betrayal of their right to have a voice in their country’s future. This moral framing resonates with readers who are concerned about human rights, justice, and the integrity of international engagement.