The moral values inherent in democracy

Context

Extensive research in moral and political psychology shows that for politics most people do not primarily rely on facts, truths, and conscious reasoning. Instead we are mostly guided by unconscious moral values, identity, biases, partisan and group loyalties, and social context. Perception itself is filtered through these lenses, so people quite literally see and interpret “the same” political reality differently. (link 1, link 2)

In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (2010), neuroscientist Sam Harris argued that science could, in principle, ground objective moral values in facts about the well‑being of people. But he didn’t claim that science had already identified a list of universal human values. In 2016, S. Matthew Liao’s book, Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality, brought together leading neuroscientists and philosophers and showed that the neuroscience of morality still is far from explaining it. At present, science has not found a consensus list of universal moral values, let alone ones tailored to secular liberal democracy. One person’s morality can be immorality or even evil to others, e.g., abortion. (link 3, link 4)

Authoritarianism vs. democracy

In modern authoritarian regimes, e.g., dictatorships, oligarchies, theocracies, and kleptocracies, the regime’s survival does not depend on accurately informing ordinary people or respecting their independent moral judgment. Average citizens have little real political power, so it doesn’t much matter if their narratives are false, incoherent, openly cruel or anything else. People just have to survive under the regime’s rhetoric.

Secular democracy is supposed to work differently. In theory, an informed electorate chooses representatives in free and fair elections. Those representatives serve the public interest within a framework of constitutional constraints. However, political science shows that this idealized picture fits poorly with how mass opinion and elections actually work. In Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government (2016), Chris Achen and Larry Bartels argue that ordinary citizens’ political thinking is often closer to group loyalty and tribal identification than to the informed, policy‑driven reasoning assumed in textbook democracy.​ They characterize people’s political reasoning and behavior as “infantile”. (link 5, link 6)

A universal moral value hypothesis for democracy

Despite the mess in science, a hypothesis is that a small set of semi‑universal moral value clusters is baked into the concept of secular, liberal democracy. These moral values are simple to grasp, but hard to apply cleanly in practice. Some experts have argued for reasoning that is compatible with these proposed moral values. (link 7, link 8, link 9)

The three proposed clusters of moral values could be support for:

1. Democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, and honest, competent, transparent government because that is morally superior and preferable to all forms of authoritarian rule.
2. Government and policy should prioritize the public interest over special interests, while minimizing harms both to (a) democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, and honest governance, and (b) all affected people, groups, and interests.
3. Moral, pro‑democracy political reasoning and engagement should be grounded, as far as possible, in good‑faith respect for and acceptance of facts, robust truths, and sound reasoning, even when these are inconvenient.

This is not a claim that everyone lives up to these values. But they do seem to function as widely shared moral standards that most people at least rhetorically say they believe in.

Evidence of universality 1: authoritarian rhetoric and behavior

Two kinds of evidence suggest that these moral clusters have a powerful, near‑universal pull. The first comes from how authoritarians talk and act. Modern authoritarian leaders generally do not openly say they reject democracy, rule of law, or civil liberties. Instead, they loudly insist that they, not their opponents, are the true defenders of “the people,” “law and order,” “freedom,” and “the national interest,” even as they dismantle those things in practice.​ (link 10)

Post‑World War II, most authoritarian regimes adopt democratic and “people’s” branding. For example, consider the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or other “people’s republics”. They hold elections that are plainly shams. But they are carefully preserved as symbols of popular consent. The same holds for Russia under its brutal dictator Putin. Putin has never canceled a national election, but he has subverted them. Political scientists often describe such systems as “electoral autocracies” precisely because they mimic democratic forms and language while hollowing out their substance.​ Some experts now classify the US as a “competitive authoritarian” state, not a democracy.

If democracy, rule of law, civil liberties, and service to the public interest were not widely perceived as morally superior, authoritarians would have far less incentive to appropriate that vocabulary rather than openly celebrating their naked domination. Their propaganda strategy shows that they clearly understand that trying to convince people these values are bad or immoral would be nearly impossible. Instead of changing minds, it is far easier to hijack democratic values rhetorically while betraying them in practice.

Evidence of universality 2: lived experience and survey data

The second line of evidence comes from common experience and large‑scale survey research. In ordinary political conversations, very few people openly say they prefer dictatorship, theocracy, oligarchy, or kleptocracy over democracy. Likewise, almost no one volunteers that they intentionally lie, reject inconvenient facts, or embrace crackpot reasoning because “the end justifies the means,” or that they want special interests served at the expense of the public interest.

These everyday observations are consistent with systematic survey data. The World Values Survey and related polling consistently find high global support for democracy in principle. For example, one summary reports that more than 82% of respondents worldwide say that having a democratic system of government is a good thing. A 2024 Ipsos poll for the Halifax Security Forum likewise found that 81% of people across 30 countries believe that democracy, human rights, and the rule of law are universal values that all nations deserve and can aspire to, rather than uniquely Western ideals. (link 11, link 12, link 13)

Among people doing politics, one rarely or never encounters anyone who openly say they favor dictatorship, oligarchy, theocracy, or kleptocracy over democracy. A person encounters few or no people who proudly say they lie or employ bad‑faith reasoning in their politics. More than a few people act in ways that oppose democratic and truth‑seeking values, but consciously or not, they feel pressure to deny that and claim those values as their own. (link 14, link 15, link 16)

Q1: How many people doing or discussing politics have you encountered that say their engagement with politics relies significantly or mostly on lies, deceit, fake facts, fomenting unwarranted, divisive emotional reactions, and/or crackpot reasoning/conspiracy theories?

Q2: How many people doing or discussing politics have you encountered that say they prefer dictatorship, oligarchy, theocracy or kleptocracy over democracy or secular democracy?