## Definition **Moral tribalism** is the phenomenon whereby the moral norms a group applies rigorously to its own members are systematically suspended, weakened, or inverted when dealing with out-group members. Every human society has a moral code; the problem is that many of those codes' obligations — honesty, fairness, compassion — are implicitly bounded by group membership. ## Evolutionary Basis Tribalism is not irrational; it was adaptive. For millions of years, survival depended on tight cooperation with a band of several dozen kin and allies, and on wariness — often lethal — towards strangers. The cognitive markers of in-group vs. out-group (race, language, dialect, dress, customs) trigger automatic evaluations that predate conscious reasoning. Children show in-group preferences by race and language before they can articulate any justification. Malo cites research showing: - Empathy is strongly in-group biased: we feel others' pain much more acutely when the sufferer is perceived as "one of us." - Loyalty within the group ranks above honesty towards out-group members. - Schadenfreude (pleasure at others' misfortune) is reliably triggered by rival-group failures — the classic sports-fan phenomenon, which Malo notes correlates with willingness to endorse intergroup violence. ## Coalitional Psychology The cognitive architecture underlying moral tribalism involves what Malo (following evolutionary psychologist Robert Kurzban and others) calls coalitional psychology: the mind contains mechanisms specifically dedicated to monitoring alliance membership, detecting defectors, and deploying moral condemnation as a weapon against out-group rivals. Key features: - **Functional vs. social beliefs**: Social beliefs need not track objective reality; their function is to signal coalition membership. A belief that distinguishes "us" from "them" reliably is more coalitionally valuable than an accurate one. - **Ideological tribes**: In post-religious Western societies, ideological identity (political party, social movement) has assumed the tribal role previously occupied by ethnicity and religion. Moral condemnation now follows ideological fault-lines. - **Lying in service of the group**: Sharing false information can serve coordination functions — creating shared threat perception, mobilising collective action. The evolutionary psychology of conflict predicts that individuals will believe and propagate group-serving falsehoods. ## The Dyadic Trap Kurt Gray's Dyadic Theory (discussed at length in Malo) adds a cognitive-template layer: every moral transgression requires one agent and one victim, and once assigned, the roles are locked. Perpetrators cannot become victims; victims cannot be guilty. This template maps directly onto tribal logic — the out-group is the perpetrator, the in-group the victim — and makes reconciliation structurally difficult. ## Modern Manifestations - Political polarisation in which members of the opposing party are seen as existentially threatening and morally corrupt rather than as holders of different policy preferences. - Identity politics frameworks that assign collective guilt and innocence by group membership. - Cancel culture as a ritualised out-group exclusion mechanism. - In-group moral heroes who are excused for behaviour that would condemn an out-group member. ## Limits and Hope Malo notes that the tribal mind is not exclusively tribal. When individuals from different groups share common goals and interact in safe, cooperative contexts, the moral circle expands. This has occurred repeatedly across history — the abolition of slavery, the extension of rights to women, the inclusion of previously excluded groups — demonstrating that coalitional psychology can be reprogrammed by experience and institutional design. ## Related - [[Evolutionary Origins of Morality]] - [[Sacred Values]] - [[Moral Outrage]] - [[Moralization]] - [[Virtue Signalling]] ## Sources - [[The Dangers of Morality (Malo 2021)]]