conuly

Looking at that list of five "moral impulses" it's pretty easy to distinguish between the first two (Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity) and the last three (In-group loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity). No particular harm comes from an excess of the first two, except maybe inefficient allocation of resources. A society rooted around avoiding harm and relieving suffering might wind up with some badly designed (but well-intentioned) public institutions; a society focused on justice, fairness, and equal treatment might get bogged down in excessive rules and bureaucracy to achieve those goals. But if you put the first two "moral impulses" together, you get the golden rule; the rule that, if universally followed, makes all other rules unnecessary.

The latter three play no part in the golden rule. Let them run unchecked, and you get every form of racism, religious intolerance, and blind obedience that makes (in extreme cases) something like Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia possible. The latter three require moderation to create a fair and just society. The first two need no moderation, but simply some common sense in implementing them.

So I would classify the first two "moral impulses" as "ethics" and the latter three as "convenient excuses to avoid ethical behavior." Whenever there is some kind of long-standing injustice that offends either of the first two principles, there are always conservatives hiding behind one or more of the latter three to explain away why the injustice is in fact right and good and moral. But that's not morality (except in the strict sense of following societal mores, however absurd, harmful or unfair they might be), it's a way to dress up tribalism, xenophobia and superstition to make them sound like good things.

My opinion, anyway. But them, I'm one of those immoral liberal types.