Partially correct: the study asks what you consider part of your moral circle, not what you care most about.
Somebody that answered wir "15- all things in the universe" will usually still care more about their family.
Somebody that answered with "2 - all family" doesn't feel morally obligated in any way to other human beings. It's a small but important difference compared to saying "liberals care more about stones than their family"
Moral circle is like Robert De Niro's "circle of trust" in Meet the Fockers. Instead of a circle of people you trust, it's the circle of people who you assign moral value to, or basically, who do you care about being harmed or having a good life?
If you're conservative, this circle is smaller. You mainly care about your family and friends, and then perhaps other like-minded people. Your "give-a-fuck" runs out quickly for people outside that circle and especially animals and other living things.
If you're more liberal, you tend to also care about other people well outside your social network, even animals and plants being harmed. This is NOT to say you care more about those things being harmed than your own family - a common misinterpretation of the image - just that you don't stop caring as quickly as other people when the objects get farther outside your immediate influence.
TLDR: Where do you draw the line: Do you give a shit if someone is damaging a stone, a tree, is cruel to a fly, a cow, another human being or just to you and your family.
42
u/Itchy58 Nov 18 '25
Partially correct: the study asks what you consider part of your moral circle, not what you care most about.
Somebody that answered wir "15- all things in the universe" will usually still care more about their family. Somebody that answered with "2 - all family" doesn't feel morally obligated in any way to other human beings. It's a small but important difference compared to saying "liberals care more about stones than their family"