Sacredness is a functional universal that anchors compliance and resists secular contamination.

Evidence

Political philosophers – from Aristotle to Marx and Nietzsche – have long speculated that citizens are more likely to do what they are supposed to do if they believe the moral codes that regulate their lives are not arbitrary social constructions but rather are anchored in bedrock values that transcend the whims of mere mortals. ‘Don’t do x because I say so’ has less impact than ‘don’t do x because God says so’. By the middle of the 20th century, prominent anthropologists and sociologists had made the complementary observation that, although there is vast variation in what groups hold sacred, sacredness seems to qualify as a functional universal across societies, both primitive and modern, and that moral communities erect a variety of psychological and institutional barriers to insulate sacred values from secular contamination [5,6]. — Philip E. Tetlock, Thinking the unthinkable, 5

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘transcend the whims of mere mortals’ function connects to manufactured-external-enemy solidarity research: both sacralization and external enemies are means of anchoring the moral order against the charge of arbitrariness. — connects to: Sacred values resist material incentives and are best countered only by rival sacred values. — Scott Atran, The Devoted Actor: Unconditional…, 82; Sacred values function as cognitive structures against ambiguity and uncertainty. — Hammad Sheikh and Jeremy Ginges and Alin Coman and Scott Atran, Religion, group threat and sacred values, 19; Elites can sway people by reframing sacred values as secular tradeoffs. — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 20

Related

• Sacred values resist tradeoffs because communities set them apart as nonfungible moral imperatives. (similarity 0.84)
• Sacred values need not be religious; secular ideals also qualify as sacred. (similarity 0.83)
• Sacred values function as cognitive structures against ambiguity and uncertainty. (similarity 0.82)
• Sacred values resist material incentives and are best countered only by rival sacred values. (similarity 0.82)
• Elites can sway people by reframing sacred values as secular tradeoffs. (similarity 0.81)
• Sacred values bind group identity and give groups advantage through non-rational commitment. (similarity 0.81)
• People behave as intuitive theologians defending sacred values, not just as economists or scientists. (similarity 0.81)
• Sacred values resist cost-benefit correction unlike ordinary preferences (similarity 0.80)
• Sacred-value defenders benefit materially yet must deny those benefits to stay non-negotiable (similarity 0.80)
• Sacred values and resource scarcity create an irreconcilable tension in social life. (similarity 0.80)
• Sacred values are inviolable in conviction yet flexible in application due to interpretive ambiguity (similarity 0.79)
• Defending sacred values defies material cost-benefit prediction across decision contexts. (similarity 0.79)
• Ritual participation plus perceived threat converts disputed preferences into sacred values. (similarity 0.79)
• Sacred values and identity fusion interact to drive sacrificial self-interest. (similarity 0.79)
• Sacred values’ interpretive ambiguity allows peace-oriented reframing (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Sacred values function as cognitive structures against ambiguity and uncertainty. #expands (0.85) — Hammad Sheikh and Jeremy Ginges and Alin Coman and Scott Atran, Religion, group threat and sacred values, 19
• Elites can sway people by reframing sacred values as secular tradeoffs. #complicates (0.80) — Scott Atran and Jeremy Ginges, Sacred Values and Cultural Conflict, 20