Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground (An interview with Kurt Gray)

Issue 151: Kurt Gray argues that liberals and conservatives share the same moral mind—everyone’s moral judgments stem from feeling vulnerable to harm

Political disagreements often feel like they strike at our deepest moral beliefs. In his newest book, Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground, Kurt Gray reveals that at the heart of our political clashes lies a shared instinct to protect ourselves and others from harm. Whether liberal or conservative, he argues that our moral judgments stem from this universal drive, though perceptions of harm and vulnerability differ across political groups.

Kurt, the author behind the

Moral Understanding

newsletter and a Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of North Carolina (and soon to be at The Ohio State University), draws on years of research to uncover how group identities and experiences shape moral perceptions and how this understanding can help bridge political divides. His ideas are provocative, yet hopeful. In our interview with Kurt, he provides an overview of the core ideas in Outraged and offers tools for navigating today’s polarized landscape with empathy and practical advice.

“Humans evolved as prey, not predators, which shaped our deep sensitivity to threats. This is why moral debates often feel so charged—we’re not debating logic, we’re reacting to perceived dangers. If you want to bridge divides, ask yourself—what harm do they see?” - Kurt Gray

We have both known Kurt and followed his work closely for the past 15 years. He is one of the world’s leading moral psychologists (as well as one of the most entertaining) and regularly churns out some of the most provocative studies in the field. His work challenges Jon Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory and offers an alternative roadmap for thinking about morality, politics, and society. We urge you to pick up a copy of his book and read it with an open mind. Kurt also pulled off one of the most legendary April Fools Day pranks of all time when he was a PhD student at Harvard—be sure to ask him about it if you see him in person. You can learn more and order Outraged here. Keep up with Kurt on Linkedin, X/Twitter and Instagram.

What does your book teach us about social identity or group dynamics?

Outraged reveals that moral conflict is rooted in harm—what we see as harmful, who we think is most vulnerable, and how we believe harm can be avoided. Social identity plays a key role in shaping these perceptions. Our groups don’t just tell us who we are; they also guide how we make sense of the world, including what we view as a threat and who we feel compelled to protect.

For example, liberals and conservatives agree that harm should be prevented but differ on who is most vulnerable. Liberals tend to focus more on the environment, immigrants, or marginalized groups, while conservatives focus more on the unborn, business owners, or law enforcement. These differences aren’t because one side is immoral, but because our groups help define who we believe needs protection.

By understanding the ways our identities shape our moral intuitions about harm, we can begin to bridge divides. Instead of assuming malice from the other side, we can see their actions as attempts to protect what matters to them—just as we are trying to do. This shift in perspective is crucial for moving beyond outrage and finding common ground.

What is the most important idea readers will learn from your book?

The core idea in Outraged is simple: our moral judgments come from gut feelings about harm. We’re all wired to protect ourselves and the vulnerable, but conflicts arise when we disagree about who the “real” victims are and what’s causing harm.

Humans evolved as prey, not predators, which shaped our deep sensitivity to threats. This is why moral debates often feel so charged—we’re not debating logic, we’re reacting to perceived dangers. If you want to bridge divides, ask yourself—what harm do they see? That question opens the door to understanding.

Why did you write this book and how did writing it change you?

I wrote Outraged because so many people I talk to—friends, students, strangers—are desperate to understand the other side. They’re tired of our divisions and want to move past the shouting. My goal was to help people see that, at our core, we’re all driven by the same instinct: to protect ourselves and those we care about.

Writing the book also changed me. I dove deep into anthropology and learned that humans didn’t evolve as predators, but as prey. We spent millions of years avoiding lions and eagles, and that shaped a deep-seated fear of threats. It’s why we’re so quick to see harm—and to accuse others of causing it. This shift in perspective changed how I see political divides. Instead of seeing the other side as “predators” trying to destroy the world, I see them as scared, just like us, trying to protect what they think matters most. That realization is powerful.

What will readers find provocative or controversial about your book?

Readers might find two ideas in Outraged provocative.

First, the idea that understanding the other side isn’t betrayal. In today’s polarized world, many see empathy or connection with political opponents as giving in or conceding the fight. But understanding is critical—not only for the health of a pluralistic democracy but for our own mental health. The constant cycle of outrage drains us, while genuine understanding can open doors. And people have bridged deeper divides before. Many readers will know about Daryl Davis, a Black man who befriended Ku Klux Klan members, leading some to renounce their beliefs. If he can find common ground with those who hate him, surely we can have meaningful conversations with people who just vote differently.

Second, readers may be surprised by the argument that our moral mind is fundamentally harm-based. Many are familiar with Moral Foundations Theory, which claims that liberals and conservatives operate on fundamentally different moral values—care, fairness, authority, loyalty, purity. But my research shows that the "foundational" claim of MFT is wrong. If you dig beneath the buzzwords used by people on the left and right, all moral disagreements boil down to one thing: harm. Conservatives may be more likely to discuss "liberty" but liberals care deeply about the liberty of women's reproductive rights.

Studies also show that, no matter the value (or the specific scenario), people make moral judgments based on intuitive perceptions of harm. This perceived harm is broader than direct physical suffering, but it is genuinely perceived. When religious conservatives condemn gay rights because they seem harmful to them, they are using empty words, but expressing genuine convictions about what leads to suffering. Recognizing that shared focus on harm reshapes how we think about morality and gives us a real foundation for better understanding.

Do you have any practical advice for people who want to apply these ideas (e.g., three tips for the real world)?

To bridge divides, we often think facts are the key. But that’s wrong.

In our studies, we asked a representative sample of Americans what would make them respect a political opponent during a conversation. Their answer? Facts. They thought discussing raw data would keep everyone rational, and rational people are easier to respect. But when we gave people facts, they called them “fake facts.” Facts from the other side feel like propaganda, not bridges.

So how do we bridge divides? The best way is through stories—especially stories about harm. Sharing personal stories of suffering helps people on the other side see that you care about protecting the vulnerable, just like they do. These stories create understanding and open the door to better conversations.

Start with Stories — by DALL-E

But not everyone has stories of suffering. Even if you don’t have a poignant story of harm, you can still improve conversations with three steps: Connect, Invite, Validate, which spells CIV, the beginning of more CIVil conversations.

Connect. Ask real, curious questions about the other person’s experiences. Before you talk about politics, show that you’re genuinely interested in understanding them as a person.

Invite. Once you've seen each other's humanity, you can invite them to share their beliefs (not demand). Encourage them to help you understand what they think and why.

Validate. Thank them for opening up. You don’t have to agree with them, but acknowledging their willingness to share can help foster mutual respect.

It’s not easy to have conversations across divides, but it’s easier with these tips. Remember: strive for understanding, not "winning," because no one changes their mind in moral conversations.

---

News and Updates

This week Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that he will be moving away from third-party fact-checking on Facebook. Jay was interviewed in Nature about how this policy change will impact the platform. While there is clear evidence that fact-checking does work, Jay noted that it is less effective for polarized news:

Fact-checking is less effective when an issue is polarized, says Jay Van Bavel, a psychologist at New York University. “If you’re fact-checking something around Brexit in the UK or the election in United States, that’s where fact-checks don’t work very well,” he says. “In part that’s because people who are partisans don’t want to believe things that make their party look bad.”

But even when fact-checks don’t seem to change people’s minds on contentious issues, they can still be helpful. Moving away from fact-checking on the world’s largest social media platform is a major step backward.

---

Catch up on the last one…

Last week, to wrap up 2024, we looked back on some of our favorite movies, shows, books and music from the last year.