On a question of morality, the US and Canada are oceans apart. Why?
| Berlin; toronto; boston; and jakarta, indonesia
This year, the Pew Research Center decided to try something new. In its annual survey on global views of morality, it added a fresh question for its respondents from around the world.
Do you feel the ethics and morals of others in your country are good?
The United States finished last.
Why We Wrote This
Researchers asked people from different countries to rank the morality and ethics of their fellow citizens. The results could offer insights into how communities can rebuild trust.
It was the only country among the 25 surveyed where more than half of respondents rated the ethics and morals of people in their country as somewhat bad or very bad.聽
Canada 鈥� which usually ranks similarly to the U.S. in such surveys 鈥� finished first. Some 92% of Canadians rated fellow Canadians as having somewhat good or very good ethics and morals.
It was a perplexing result, running dramatically against longtime trends shown by similar studies.
鈥淭here鈥檚 no paper out there that explains this,鈥� says Joshua Conrad Jackson, a behavioral scientist at the University of Chicago. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 really know what鈥檚 going on in the survey.鈥�
Researchers are trying to piece together what it might mean. Given that this was the first time the question was ever asked, was it a blip? An outlier? Or has it unearthed something new about how Americans think about morality and each other?
No one is willing to say they have the answer. But a range of theories have given fresh fuel to decadeslong conversations about polarization and social trust. Do Americans increasingly see one another as unethical? Not everyone thinks that鈥檚 necessarily what this survey highlights. But looking at the U.S., Canada, and Indonesia 鈥� which came fractionally second to Canada in the Pew survey 鈥� offers insights and ideas to consider, if not definitive answers. And it suggests potential ways back for the U.S. Not only are moral views of one another often wrong, but America was also once a global leader in overcoming聽 entrenched lines of division. 聽 聽
Many theories
Part of the challenge with drawing firm conclusions from this particular survey is that researchers are not entirely sure what respondents are telling them. Morality is a difficult subject to quantify; people disagree on the definition, and some respondents deny that it is even a thing. For that reason, studies on morality are often closely linked with similar studies on ethics, kindness, or trust.聽
In the past, these studies have revealed several findings that generally hold true across societies and over time. Respondents think the morality of those close to them is stronger than the morality of those they don鈥檛 know, and they believe that morality in society is getting worse.
The results of the latest Pew survey don鈥檛 fit neatly into either of those trends.
Adam Mastroianni 鈥� a social psychologist who, one colleague says, 鈥渒nows more about this topic than anyone in the world鈥� 鈥� is stumped.
鈥淚t appears to be out of step with a lot of other surveys we鈥檝e seen,鈥� says Dr. Mastroianni, author of the science newsletter Experimental History.
But he has a theory.
鈥淗ere鈥檚 what I think might be happening,鈥� he says in an email conversation. 鈥淲hen you ask Canadians: 鈥楬ow moral are Canadians?鈥� they hear that question as, 鈥楬ow moral is Canada compared to other relevant countries?鈥� And they say: 鈥榁ery moral,鈥� because in the news they mainly see other countries blowing each other up.鈥�
Otherwise, why would so many Canadians say other Canadians are moral, when in other surveys, Canadians routinely say nearly half of Canadians can鈥檛 be trusted?
Pew鈥檚 Kirsten Lesage is loath to draw conclusions, even as an author of the study. But a few things stick out to her:
- Usually, young adults and older adults have broadly similar views on trends in morality. But on this question, younger adults in the U.S. were an outlier. They were more likely to see other Americans as having bad morals and ethics.
- Pew has data on 海角大神s and religiously unaffiliated people in 17 countries. In half of those countries, including the U.S., people who are not religiously affiliated are more likely than 海角大神s to rate morality as bad.
- The data does appear to have a political element. In the U.S. and beyond, respondents who support the party out of power are more likely to see others as having bad morals.
Pew鈥檚 question might hint at 鈥渁ffective polarization,鈥� says Dr. Jackson. This is deeper than political polarization. It鈥檚 polarization based on what you think of others generally. In other words: Do you feel a strong connection with like-minded people and strong negative emotions toward others?
Data shows clearly that the U.S. has high and accelerating levels of affective polarization. In fact, Dr. Jackson says, when you overlay one respected study about affective polarization around the world on the Pew question, 鈥淭he rank order [of countries] roughly matches.鈥�
The big outlier in that case is Canada, which normally scores lower. But Keith Neuman, a senior associate at the Environics Institute, a Canadian polling firm, says that might be a matter of timing. The question from Pew was posed at a time when U.S. President Donald Trump took office threatening to annex Canada.聽
鈥淐anada was feeling an existential threat; that has a unifying tendency,鈥� says Dr. Neuman.
Founding philosophies
In many ways, the data reveals Indonesia as an interesting case study, says Dr. Lesage of Pew. In its global morality report, the survey asked respondents to consider the morality of nine behaviors, including divorce, extramarital affairs, and gambling. Indonesia is among the strictest across the board, seeing almost all the behaviors as immoral.
That might seem to indicate a society with harsh moral judgments of others. But the reverse is true. As in Canada, 92% of Indonesians saw their fellow Indonesians as somewhat moral or very moral.
Part of that can be attributed to having the shared values of a dominant religion. Nearly 90% of Indonesians are Muslim.
鈥淟aws and institutions in Indonesia are still strongly influenced by religious values, although they are often paraphrased in more universal language,鈥� says Nadia Yovani, a sociologist at Universitas Indonesia in Depok.
The Muslim concept of five daily prayers, she says, teaches discipline and regularity. 鈥淭his value of discipline is then reflected in social rules, such as the obligation to arrive on time at school or work,鈥� she adds.
The same dynamic holds true in Sweden, though in a different way. Sweden ranked fourth in the Pew question, with 88% of Swedes saying other Swedes were somewhat good or very good morally. But that is based on a strong shared ethic grounded in secular humanism.
Yet Indonesia has also done something else. Back in 1945, in an effort to unite the vast and culturally diverse archipelago into one nation, Indonesia鈥檚 founders outlined an official state ideology known as Pancasila. Its five principles promote religious tolerance and an embrace of the moral traditions of all Indonesia鈥檚 faiths. Today, references to Pancasila abound, from Jakarta gift shops to church facades in Borneo.
鈥淔or a heterogeneous society like Indonesia, Pancasila provides common ground that allows different groups to coexist,鈥� says Tubagus Haryo Karbyanto, secretary-general of Forum Warga Kota, a nongovernmental organization advocating on social issues.聽
Dr. Yovani notes that, at the end of Ramadan, when Muslims break a full month of fasting during the day, non-Muslims in Indonesia will often prepare the first celebratory meal for their Muslim neighbors. Pancasila touches on something deep in the Indonesian identity, others agree.
鈥淪uch traditions have long been part of everyday life,鈥� says Elfrida Manurung, a postgraduate student at Indonesian 海角大神 University in Jakarta. 鈥淪o whether or not Pancasila exists, Indonesian society already has moral values inherited from its cultural heritage.鈥�
Canada looks to similar historical influences. John Ralston Saul, a Canadian essayist and novelist, argues that well before Canada became a nation, it was constructed upon a 鈥渢riangular foundation鈥� of three distinct peoples: Indigenous, French, and English. And in an isolated, northern climate, they all had to work together to survive.
鈥淪o the idea that you could have a country which was based on a kind of cooperation between differences without removing the differences, and make this a way of life, then you鈥檝e got something quite interesting,鈥� he says. 鈥淚 think that that鈥檚 sort of the basis of what Canada is.鈥�
In 1867, modern Canada was founded on peace, order, and good government 鈥� in contrast with the American concept of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, notes Michael MacMillan, a co-founder of the Samara Centre for Democracy in Toronto.
鈥淚t鈥檚 perhaps accurate, maybe fanciful, that Canadians get along better because we needed to get along better,鈥� he says. 鈥淥r maybe that鈥檚 what we were taught to believe.鈥�
Cracks in American polarization
For its part, the U.S. has a motto on every piece of currency that should evoke the same sense of collectivism: e pluribus unum 鈥� 鈥渙ut of many, one.鈥� But that founding ideal is being put to the test. The rise of affective polarization is 鈥渟teeper in the U.S. than in any other country surveyed,鈥� says Dr. Jackson.
Yet researchers have found that views about the morality and trustworthiness of others are often built on false perceptions, both in the U.S. and beyond.
鈥淧eople think other people dislike them more than they dislike others,鈥� says Dr. Jackson. The driver of affective polarization is: 鈥溾�業 don鈥檛 like them, because they don鈥檛 like me.鈥欌��
Michael Jackson has been thinking a lot about morality recently. He鈥檚 studying it in his college philosophy class in Las Vegas. On a recent visit to Boston, he struggles for his own definition, but says people do seem too quick to judge others today.
鈥淔or sure, people go, 鈥極h, you don鈥檛 agree with me, so you must be an idiot, so I hate you,鈥欌�� he says.聽
The reasons for this are a matter of debate. Some point to the rise of social media and cable news. Others point to trends in geography, with like-minded people moving to the same areas.
Another reason could be how different groups prioritize certain values, says Jan Voelkel, an assistant professor of public policy at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. 鈥淚t鈥檚 very clear that Democrats and Republicans both really care about morality and just that they care about a different kind of morality.鈥�
Democrats might be focused more on issues of reducing harm and fostering fairness, while Republicans value a form of loyalty seen as patriotism, he says. 鈥淩epublicans also think that it is really important to respect certain traditions,鈥� he adds. 鈥淒emocrats do not necessarily think that that is a strong moral value in itself.鈥�
Yet he notes something important. While Republicans鈥� and Democrats鈥� dislike for each other has grown enormously, their differences on actual policy haven鈥檛 changed much.
鈥淥ur differences have less to do with the facts and policy and [rational thinking], and much more to do with emotion and identity and fear,鈥� says Amanda Ripley, author of 鈥淗igh Conflict: Why We Get Trapped and How We Get Out.鈥�
She calls it a 鈥渞evenge cycle,鈥� and Lucas Carvalho can see that.
The student at Northeastern University in Boston pauses outside class on a crisp New England day. In general, he believes that 鈥渢he majority of people are quite moral,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut I think that people just have a bad outlook on other people.鈥�
Mr. Carvalho sees a lack of community contributing to a knee-jerk judgmentalness.聽
鈥淚 would say as a society, I think we鈥檙e more individualistic,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ecause we鈥檙e not as much of a community nowadays ... people aren鈥檛 as open to new ideas.鈥�
As a result, 鈥渢he slightest thing can tick someone off.鈥澛�
In theory, the solution is fairly straightforward, says Ms. Ripley. It鈥檚 about building relationships across divides.
鈥淧eople want to trust each other. People want to live in a country where they can feel proud of their neighbors. That鈥檚 a very basic need,鈥� says the author. 鈥淚f we think the other side or our neighbors are really immoral, and then we find evidence that they鈥檙e not as immoral as we thought, people do react in a positive way to that.鈥�
That remedy would have been very familiar to Alexis de Tocqueville, the French historian who chronicled America in the 1830s. To him, what made America exceptional was 鈥渢he art of associating鈥� beyond the strict class lines that divided Europeans of that era.
鈥淎mericans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite,鈥� he wrote in 鈥淒emocracy in America.鈥� 鈥淎mericans use associations to give fetes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books, to send missionaries to the antipodes; in this manner they create hospitals, prisons, schools.鈥�
It might be getting harder to see this principle in action stateside, but it rings true to Annisa Nurul Utami.
In her work as a high school principal in Garut, in the mountainous Indonesian province of West Java, she鈥檚 worked closely with Muslims and non-Muslims alike. She鈥檚 witnessed many admirable qualities 鈥� such as charity, respect, tolerance 鈥� across demographic lines.
鈥淚 think morality itself isn鈥檛 a single, fixed thing,鈥� she says. 鈥淚t鈥檚 influenced by many factors that are interconnected. In Indonesia, religion is definitely a strong foundation. It can strengthen things like cooperation and gotong royong,鈥� or the Indonesian idea of 鈥渟houldering burdens together.鈥�
But everyone has the capacity to be moral, she says, 鈥渨hether it鈥檚 for spiritual reward, obedience to God, or simply to live harmoniously with others.鈥�
