Affiliation with groups is instinctive for humans, part of our primate heritage. We pursue emotional and physical safety through belonging to a group, and it informs to a substantial degree our identity, our sense of self.
Most of what prompts an individual to seek group affiliation is not conscious, rather than a rational calculation, let alone the result of serious moral evaluation. We tend to adhere to groups even as we observe moral failings within the group, or in the unified efforts of the group. When confronted with moral quandaries involving group membership, the typical response, essentially reflexive, is to construct moral justification for remaining 'in solidarity' with the group. Paradigmatic examples include the 'code of silence' practiced by police in response to observed criminal conduct by fellow officers, and the tireless campaign by the Catholic Church to discredit the victims of abuse by priests that has persisted over centuries. I cite these examples because of the presumed moral standing of police and priests across the world, and because they serve as exemplars of how individuals respond to conflicts between stated moral principles of a group, observed immorality, and maintaining group cohesion. In a world in which morality was the primary concern, there would be no conflict at all, and group cohesion would be no more than a secondary consideration.
Psychological needs for acceptance by and recognition within groups determines much in-group behavior, including subordinating oneself to the group, adoption of group norms of conduct and dress, and voicing hostility towards 'outsiders'.
When individuals have experienced painful abandonment or isolation, they will attach to whatever group will have them, something we see in the development of cults. It's worth noting in passing that the distinction between what are considered ordinary groups (social, political, familial, ethnic, etc.) and cults is largely arbitrary and amorphous.
Affiliation with groups is instinctive for humans, part of our primate heritage. We pursue emotional and physical safety through belonging to a group, and it informs to a substantial degree our identity, our sense of self.
Most of what prompts an individual to seek group affiliation is not conscious, rather than a rational calculation, let alone the result of serious moral evaluation. We tend to adhere to groups even as we observe moral failings within the group, or in the unified efforts of the group. When confronted with moral quandaries involving group membership, the typical response, essentially reflexive, is to construct moral justification for remaining 'in solidarity' with the group. Paradigmatic examples include the 'code of silence' practiced by police in response to observed criminal conduct by fellow officers, and the tireless campaign by the Catholic Church to discredit the victims of abuse by priests that has persisted over centuries. I cite these examples because of the presumed moral standing of police and priests across the world, and because they serve as exemplars of how individuals respond to conflicts between stated moral principles of a group, observed immorality, and maintaining group cohesion. In a world in which morality was the primary concern, there would be no conflict at all, and group cohesion would be no more than a secondary consideration.
Psychological needs for acceptance by and recognition within groups determines much in-group behavior, including subordinating oneself to the group, adoption of group norms of conduct and dress, and voicing hostility towards 'outsiders'.
When individuals have experienced painful abandonment or isolation, they will attach to whatever group will have them, something we see in the development of cults. It's worth noting in passing that the distinction between what are considered ordinary groups (social, political, familial, ethnic, etc.) and cults is largely arbitrary and amorphous.