Mapping the moral foundations of the European Union: Why a lack of moral diversity may undermine perceived EU legitimacy.

The stability and effectiveness of supranational organizations, like the European Union (EU), will improve when citizens perceive them as legitimate. Across three studies, two of which were preregistered, and a preregistered pilot study, we combined EU legal expertise with social psychological theory on morality to understand how perceived EU legitimacy is influenced by a sense of moral alignment with the EU. We propose that, currently, the EU gives more weight to values linked to "individualizing" moral foundations (e.g. compassion, social justice, and equality) than to values linked to "binding" moral foundations (e.g. patriotism, religion, and traditionalism). As this may leave people who endorse binding moral foundations feel unrepresented, we investigated whether the EU could gain legitimacy by appealing to values that resonate with binding moral foundations. In study 1, text analyses revealed that the European Commission President's State of the Union speeches indeed appeal more to individualizing than to binding moral foundations. Study 2 (n = 595) provided correlational evidence that the negative relationship between binding moral foundations and perceived EU legitimacy was mediated by lower moral alignment with EU law. Finally, study 3 (n = 567) showed through an experiment that reframing or rebalancing EU law to better align it with binding moral foundations could increase perceived EU legitimacy among people who endorse these moral foundations. The results illustrate the importance of understanding and attending to moral diversity among EU citizens. More generally, our work shows how a collaboration between social psychology and law contributes to safeguarding the legitimacy of supranational organizations.

Bioethics: An International, Morally Diverse, and Often Political Endeavor.

Bioethicists often remind health care professionals to pay close attention to issues of diversity and inclusion. Approaches to ethics consultation, where the perspective of the bioethicist is taken to be more morally correct or necessarily authoritative, have been critiqued as inappropriately authoritarian. Despite such apparent recognition of the importance of respecting moral diversity and the inclusion of different viewpoints, authoritarianism is all too often the approach adopted, especially as bioethics has shifted evermore into concerns for public policy. Yet, secular values and philosophical principles are not morally neutral; nor are the private moral convictions of bioethicists. Such analysis is always grounded in particular understandings of the right and the good, the virtuous and the just. Critical examination of common treatments and new alternatives is essential for the careful scientific practice of medicine. The same is true with regard to bioethics. Stagnating in customary or accepted claims of a common secular morality or a standard set of bioethical principles out of an unwillingness to explore the real diversity of moral thought, including traditional religious and cultural worldviews, fails to tap the human capacity to find innovative solutions to the complex challenges facing medicine.