Sana Khadar

Other people could steal from us or they could murder us.

And that tool is morality.

We develop stringent ideas about right and wrong, and if someone did something wrong, something immoral, outrage would be one punishment.

And Kurt says this moral sense in our minds compels us to cooperate and not harm others, and to get angry when other people might harm us or vulnerable members of society.

Kurt says the problem is that these days, the threats we face are less obvious.

It's why arguments on social media on everything from your favorite celebrity to more significant issues like abortion can inspire such vitriol and rage.

And it goes some way to explaining what could possibly lead so many Republicans and Democrats to say the world would be better off if their political opponents were dead.

But if this is our evolutionary programming, then is there any hope of overcoming this pattern?

Well, Kurt thinks there is, and step one in that process is to acknowledge that harm, and a concern with preventing harm, is what all our arguments over moral issues, over what counts as right or wrong, boil down to.

That's what they're ultimately about.

But you might be wondering why that is step one.

And before I can explain that further, I need to actually backtrack on what I've just said.

Because this idea that harm is at the core of all our moral arguments is actually not what all psychologists who study morality think.

Allow me to detour for a moment into a somewhat academic but also relevant to our everyday lives debate.

You might recognize the name.

That's the guy who wrote The Anxious Generation and the book The Coddling of the American Mind.

Meaning they care not just about harm and fairness, but also things like loyalty and authority and purity.

Whereas progressives are primarily concerned with questions of harm and fairness.

And so does that have any effect day to day on our lives?

Or is this purely like an academic debate?