I'm a psychologist specializing in the study of how nonphilosophers think about the nature of morality, and in particular the question of moral realism and antirealism. Most of my work focuses on the methodological challenges of prompting people without philosophical training to interpret stimuli (such as survey questions) as researchers intend.
What I've found from conducting meta-research on how this research is conducted is that most people are probably not interpreting questions the way researchers intend. I suspect something similar is going on here. I wrote a comment in a restack that I'll reproduce here:
"There are clear and absolute standards for what is right and wrong Or Whether something is right or wrong often depends on the situation."
Pew normally asks good questions but this question is terrible. Does Pew take feedback from people on question phrasing?
Whether there are “clear” moral standards is, ironically, unclear. What does that even mean? Does it mean that it is easy to discern what is morally right or wrong? Or does it mean that for any given moral rule or principle, that there aren’t many exceptions to it? These don’t mean the same thing.
It may be very easy to judge that it would be wrong to steal in some cases but not others. Or it may be very difficult to judge that a given moral rule has few or no exceptions.
It’s not even clear the possibilities presented in this question are mutually exclusive.
The same holds for “absolute.” What does that mean? Again, does it mean the rule doesn’t have exceptions? If so, why is “clear” there? Is that redundant? If it means something other than this, then why is it there? Can you think a standard is clear but not absolute, or absolute but not clear?
Furthermore, why wouldn’t whether something is right or wrong not simply depend on the situation, but also depend on the something in question? I bet if you ask people about genocide, they won’t say it depends on the situation, but if you ask about “hitting someone in the face” they will say it depends on the situation at much higher rates.
Much of this is going to turn on the level of specificity in the “something” you refer to. Violence? High situational variation. Torture? Much less.
Sloppy questions like this are likely to cause interpretative variation: variation in responses that is not due to different responses to the same question, but different interpretations of that question. Interpretative variation threatens the meaningfulness of measures by rendering variation in responses effectively meaningless: respondents are essentially responding to different questions.
Edited to add: as a more general point, it's also simply straightforwardly unclear how respondents will interpret terms like "clear" and "absolute." Just what are these supposed to mean, exactly?
Yep, complex stuff. For example my understanding is "thou should not murder" is better translation than "thou should not kill" with murder being defined as unlawful killing. What is lawful and unlawful killing is a massive topic, although there is a very broad consensus that self defense of self or others, against combatants in war, and mercy killing are different than murder
I don't see the conflict. Real moral standards ARE situational. Being alive means responding and adapting to what's happening. Only a machine or an inanimate object can be non-situational.
Within the Catholic context there are grave sins "black and white" and there is culpability which is situational. If you are a Catholic who listened in cathecism you could very easily answer the question both ways depending on whether you are considering the act or the culpability. I don't know think people are overthinking but I don't know if the question is sufficiently subtle unpack what people actually believe on the topic.
I think surveys capture vibes and emphasis, but functional belief.
Even for those that say "The Bible Says It. I Believe It. That Settles It." what they mean is "The social group I identify with negotiates with the text to produce an interpretation of what the bible says about this, and that's what I believe."
I have a book about nurses in World War II. There is a story about a hospital ship that got bombed and a nurse was trapped in a burning cabin. She had her head out of the port hole and was screaming in pain, but no one could save her because the door was warped shut. Finally a cabin boy grabbed a wrench and hit her on the head killing her. That was murder. Or was it mercy?
It just struck me as odd how few people answered this as "I don't know." I looked it up and "I don't know" wasn't an option on the form, it was either of the two answers. So expressing uncertainty was not an option.
A better way to dig into this would be surveys that ask people about specific situations as well as general principles. Is stealing always wrong? Was it wrong for a slave to steal food from his owner? If you knew someone intended to kill you would it be wrong to kill them before they had a chance to take action?
I think it's really difficult to write about this in a way that doesn't use pejorative language about people that disagree with an inflexible interpretation of morality. I know that even recognizing that this type of person exists in (my experience-based) White Evangelical circles comes with a flood of dismissive and insulting characterizations that seek to "other" the non-absolutists. It's a really difficult piece to author a survey question about because of the dog-whistle-iness of the topic.
I wonder what it would look like if it was written from the other way around where people that claim moral absolutes were characterized with pejorative language. Merciful Morality vs. Dogmatic Dictates? Gentle Judgment vs Pious Platitudes?
I really appreciate this account and find all your graphs fascinating, thank you.
I wonder if it’s worth sending this to David Brooks? His article in the Atlantic a couple of years ago, titled ‘HOW AMERICA GOT MEAN’, covers a lot of this territory on changes in moral education.
Aha I’m afraid I wouldn’t know his work well enough, but click bait aside, it was well worth reading (and not because I agreed with what he was saying, because I didn’t, for the most part).
Good insights, interesting framing, and quality examples with a wrong-headed conclusion are what I typically expected from Brooks when I read him regularly.
By replacing white christians with 'mainline' christians you are exposing and perpetuating a major issue within the church: favoritism. Now folks don't have to consider the 'flavor' christian that isn't theirs. The walls grow higher.
I'm pretty sure this is a statement of belonging and not belief. The survey isn't telling people that they only believe something because they identified with one of those separate umbrella Christian groups (Evangelical, Mainline, Black Protestant, Catholic); the respondent is telling the surveyor what they identify as.
Who are the 'mainline' christians? Or, its too late in the day to still be playing these games. Who are the 'Black' protestants? Are they the only ones with color? These are the walls that are still standing in the church, and in part why such an evil person can come in and take advantage of those wounds we refuse to dress.
I hate to be all "read the syllabus" on you, but these groups are pretty well-established in the Pew Landscape study. They even include information on how they categorized volunteered (free text) responses:
I'm a psychologist specializing in the study of how nonphilosophers think about the nature of morality, and in particular the question of moral realism and antirealism. Most of my work focuses on the methodological challenges of prompting people without philosophical training to interpret stimuli (such as survey questions) as researchers intend.
What I've found from conducting meta-research on how this research is conducted is that most people are probably not interpreting questions the way researchers intend. I suspect something similar is going on here. I wrote a comment in a restack that I'll reproduce here:
"There are clear and absolute standards for what is right and wrong Or Whether something is right or wrong often depends on the situation."
Pew normally asks good questions but this question is terrible. Does Pew take feedback from people on question phrasing?
Whether there are “clear” moral standards is, ironically, unclear. What does that even mean? Does it mean that it is easy to discern what is morally right or wrong? Or does it mean that for any given moral rule or principle, that there aren’t many exceptions to it? These don’t mean the same thing.
It may be very easy to judge that it would be wrong to steal in some cases but not others. Or it may be very difficult to judge that a given moral rule has few or no exceptions.
It’s not even clear the possibilities presented in this question are mutually exclusive.
The same holds for “absolute.” What does that mean? Again, does it mean the rule doesn’t have exceptions? If so, why is “clear” there? Is that redundant? If it means something other than this, then why is it there? Can you think a standard is clear but not absolute, or absolute but not clear?
Furthermore, why wouldn’t whether something is right or wrong not simply depend on the situation, but also depend on the something in question? I bet if you ask people about genocide, they won’t say it depends on the situation, but if you ask about “hitting someone in the face” they will say it depends on the situation at much higher rates.
Much of this is going to turn on the level of specificity in the “something” you refer to. Violence? High situational variation. Torture? Much less.
Sloppy questions like this are likely to cause interpretative variation: variation in responses that is not due to different responses to the same question, but different interpretations of that question. Interpretative variation threatens the meaningfulness of measures by rendering variation in responses effectively meaningless: respondents are essentially responding to different questions.
Edited to add: as a more general point, it's also simply straightforwardly unclear how respondents will interpret terms like "clear" and "absolute." Just what are these supposed to mean, exactly?
Yep, complex stuff. For example my understanding is "thou should not murder" is better translation than "thou should not kill" with murder being defined as unlawful killing. What is lawful and unlawful killing is a massive topic, although there is a very broad consensus that self defense of self or others, against combatants in war, and mercy killing are different than murder
.
Thanks for pointing this out. Although I'm not in this academic field, your critique reflects my instant reaction to the question.
I believe in clear moral standards that are applied situationally.
I don't see the conflict. Real moral standards ARE situational. Being alive means responding and adapting to what's happening. Only a machine or an inanimate object can be non-situational.
I often get responses like this about survey questions.
I will make this suggestion: you are reading the question with way more care and thought than the average American.
Within the Catholic context there are grave sins "black and white" and there is culpability which is situational. If you are a Catholic who listened in cathecism you could very easily answer the question both ways depending on whether you are considering the act or the culpability. I don't know think people are overthinking but I don't know if the question is sufficiently subtle unpack what people actually believe on the topic.
I think surveys capture vibes and emphasis, but functional belief.
Even for those that say "The Bible Says It. I Believe It. That Settles It." what they mean is "The social group I identify with negotiates with the text to produce an interpretation of what the bible says about this, and that's what I believe."
You beat me to the Dan McClellan catchphrase!
Yep, guess we have been watching/reading some of the same stuff.
I have a book about nurses in World War II. There is a story about a hospital ship that got bombed and a nurse was trapped in a burning cabin. She had her head out of the port hole and was screaming in pain, but no one could save her because the door was warped shut. Finally a cabin boy grabbed a wrench and hit her on the head killing her. That was murder. Or was it mercy?
It just struck me as odd how few people answered this as "I don't know." I looked it up and "I don't know" wasn't an option on the form, it was either of the two answers. So expressing uncertainty was not an option.
A better way to dig into this would be surveys that ask people about specific situations as well as general principles. Is stealing always wrong? Was it wrong for a slave to steal food from his owner? If you knew someone intended to kill you would it be wrong to kill them before they had a chance to take action?
I think it's really difficult to write about this in a way that doesn't use pejorative language about people that disagree with an inflexible interpretation of morality. I know that even recognizing that this type of person exists in (my experience-based) White Evangelical circles comes with a flood of dismissive and insulting characterizations that seek to "other" the non-absolutists. It's a really difficult piece to author a survey question about because of the dog-whistle-iness of the topic.
I wonder what it would look like if it was written from the other way around where people that claim moral absolutes were characterized with pejorative language. Merciful Morality vs. Dogmatic Dictates? Gentle Judgment vs Pious Platitudes?
I really appreciate this account and find all your graphs fascinating, thank you.
I wonder if it’s worth sending this to David Brooks? His article in the Atlantic a couple of years ago, titled ‘HOW AMERICA GOT MEAN’, covers a lot of this territory on changes in moral education.
Brooks does love himself a forced Binary!
Aha I’m afraid I wouldn’t know his work well enough, but click bait aside, it was well worth reading (and not because I agreed with what he was saying, because I didn’t, for the most part).
Good insights, interesting framing, and quality examples with a wrong-headed conclusion are what I typically expected from Brooks when I read him regularly.
Great summary. I wish all journalists/ articles came with this kind of insightful breakdown!
By replacing white christians with 'mainline' christians you are exposing and perpetuating a major issue within the church: favoritism. Now folks don't have to consider the 'flavor' christian that isn't theirs. The walls grow higher.
Well, this is a new one.
By not lumping all Christians together into a single category, I'm perpetuating favoritism.
I have no absolutely no idea why that would be the case.
Maybe I was a bit too quick. Who are the 'mainline' christians?
I'm pretty sure this is a statement of belonging and not belief. The survey isn't telling people that they only believe something because they identified with one of those separate umbrella Christian groups (Evangelical, Mainline, Black Protestant, Catholic); the respondent is telling the surveyor what they identify as.
Who are the 'mainline' christians? Or, its too late in the day to still be playing these games. Who are the 'Black' protestants? Are they the only ones with color? These are the walls that are still standing in the church, and in part why such an evil person can come in and take advantage of those wounds we refuse to dress.
I hate to be all "read the syllabus" on you, but these groups are pretty well-established in the Pew Landscape study. They even include information on how they categorized volunteered (free text) responses:
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2025/02/PR_2025.02.26_religious-landscape-study_report.pdf
Appendix B, page 353.
I appreciate that you're speaking from a grounds of philosophy, but this is not a survey to do that. This is a measurement of reality.
Well, I'd say this horse is dead! lol!! Thanks for the convo.