Being good is no simple matter; people think of moral character as loyalty, fairness, kindness to others, respect for authority and the veneration of what is pure and sacred. While fairness and care for others focus on the rights of individuals, the alternative set of values like loyalty, respect for authority and love of sacred values primarily facilitate a collectivistic mentality, such as national patriotism. These differences describe the tension between the good of an individual and that of a collective.

Collective oriented values support smooth group functioning and are purported to be the secret of longevity of major religions. However, the cost of group identity allegiance is increased derogation of people who are seen as outsiders (aptly named “out-group members” in the parlance of psychology). For example, a recent study found that high support of collective values predicted more justification of the use of torture techniques.

Importantly, the researchers found an important qualification of this finding: in-group vs. out-group boundaries were irrelevant to those who extended their moral regard to humanity, rather then those like them. Thus, moral concern for loyalty, purity and authority no longer exhibited its downsides. Authors believe that since the enlightenment era, concern for others has been including a growing number of people and groups. This bodes well for the future, suggesting that the salience of a global identity could inoculate people from out-group derogation and in-group favoritism, whether their values are collective or individual focused.

Finally, the researchers found that a context in which a decision is seen as a moral one helped bring out the breadth of people’s moral community, for better or for worse. People who were personally unconcerned with out-groups as worthy of moral regard were more likely to withhold life-saving help from “foreigners” but only when they were reminded of their moral values – and who they (don’t) apply to.