In his book, Outraged, Kurt Gray studies the psychology of moral attitudes. He argues that humans all share the same basic idea of morality. We take the side of the victim of intentional harm and wish to see the perpetrator punished. Our moral disagreements come from different perceptions of the severity of harm and whether a particular claim of victim status is valid.
Gray's view of morality can be contrasted with Friedrich Nietzsche's distinction between master morality and slave morality. As described by Gregg Henriques,2
In Gray's view, humans are naturally inclined toward something closer to slave morality. He attributes this to the prehistoric environment in which we once lived in fear of powerful predators, including large wild beasts. We evolved to form groups that could increase our ability to survive, and these groups in turn evolved a moral outlook that was focused on protecting individuals from harm.
As history unfolded, humans have been able to reduce the risks posed by nature and drive many of the ancient wild beasts to extinction. By now, the biggest threats to humans come from other humans. But the moral drive to protect individuals from harm has stuck with us.
Gray writes,
Gray suggests that nowadays, moral outrage is often excessive and inappropriate. We are much safer than we were hundreds of years ago, and much, much safer than we were in prehistoric times, when our brains evolved. But we consume media that is saturated with threats and divisiveness.
Given the universal drive to be outraged by intentional interpersonal harm, what can account for our disagreements over morality and politics? Gray argues that these disagreements reflect different perceptions of the nature of harm, and especially differences concerning victim status. Gray writes,
The concept of differences in AoVs seems useful. For example, consider how different AoVs were apparent in the reactions in December of 2024 to the assassination of health insurance executive Brian Thompson by Luigi Mangioni, a young man who suffered from back pain.
The AoV concept relates to an earlier book co-authored by Gray and Daniel Wegner.3 They found that people have two clusters of beliefs about other humans. One is that those humans have rational agency; the other is that humans can feel suffering. When focusing on a single individual in an emotionally fraught situation, we become tempted to view one person as the villain and the other as the victim, rather than take a more nuanced perspective.
Based on his framework, Gray suggests that political differences can be bridged if people can come to empathize with the other side's assumptions of vulnerability. For example, if a gun rights activist can appreciate the story of a gun control advocate whose close friend or relative was killed by a gun, the activist might at least acknowledge the humanity of the gun control advocate.