Moral Trade Under Polarization

Social divisiveness is often seen as a barrier to interaction between individuals of opposing beliefs. This article examines a mechanism that relies on such differences. In a moral trade, individuals with different beliefs exchange commitments on actions pertaining to those beliefs, in a way that is mutually beneficial. If structured correctly, Democrats and Republicans, pro-life and pro-choice advocates, vegetarians and evangelists can all commit to arrangements that generate “moral gains,” turning zero-sum contests into positive-sum exchanges. This article formalizes moral trade and examines the features that distinguish it from conventional trade. There are vast unrealized gains from moral trade. Yet would such trades ever take place? Despite the potential for mutual benefit, moral trade may clash with norms against commodifying principled beliefs, and it is prone to credibility problems. To assess the significance of these obstacles, I conduct two survey experiments on a combined sample of 4,300 U.S. respondents, timed to the 2024 Presidential election. The results show that large majorities are open to moral trade, even on morally contentious issues. Individual-level variation suggests a balance of self-interested and affective factors, with moral reasoning type and religiosity emerging as significant predictors. Finally, the evidence suggests that engaging in moral trade may itself reduce polarization, by fostering political tolerance. While moral trade is primarily a means of adapting to moral divisions, it may also hold promise as a means of mitigating such divisions.