Exemplars of the liberal no-harm principle?

Or just stunted in their ethical development? College students.

Via Dr. Helen: If you're a Democrat, would you eat the family dog?

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt

I began to study morality and culture at the University of Pennsylvania in 1987. A then-prevalent definition of the moral domain, from the Berkeley psychologist Elliot Turiel, said that morality refers to "prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other."

...
Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong.

Elsewhere I've written that the precepts of [particular] justice are the most readily knowable, but not all there is to moral/virtuous living. I wonder, how would college students answer questions about duties proper to virtues other than particular justice? Would they even recognize those duties? And then there are precepts of the moral virtues which concern the self, and precepts which are known only by the wise. Given the lack of respect for authority and tradition (the liberal bias against both being one source of such an attitude), there should be a cultural deficit in our knowledge of the latter. (Accepting that there are regional cultural differences.)

I would argue that the virtues allied to justice have been forgotten by many Americans--I have yet to read a liberal account of morality that even acknowledges them or is able to explain them.

More links:
Jon Haidt's homepage
Haidt Lab Home Page
SocialPsychology.org page
The Believer - Interview with Jonathan Haidt
Edge: MORAL PSYCHOLOGY AND THE MISUNDERSTANDING OF RELIGION
Jonathan Haidt: The Happiness Hypothesis (Google Books) -- blog
Vox Popoli: Interview with Jonathan Haidt
Google Video: Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0 - Jonathan Haidt
Beyond Belief 2: Jonathan Haidt
Jonathan Haidt: Enlightenment 2.0 requires Morality 2.0

Get Happy with Ancient Wisdom

Interview with Jonathan Haidt
Jonathan Haidt on the "Five Foundations" of Morality

Crunchy Con: Scientist explains conservatism's success, Politics, morality and the culture war

I am not familiar with any reviews of The Happiness Hypothesis written by Thomists or Catholics. I picked it up once to take a quick look, but wasn't impressed.

From the abstract:

Happiness is not something that you can find, acquire, or achieve directly. You have to get the conditions right and then wait. Some of those conditions are within you, such as coherence among the parts and levels of your personality. Other conditions require relationships to things beyond you: Just as plants need sun, water and good soil to thrive, people need love, work and a connection to something larger.

Does he give a definition of happiness? I think he does mention Aristotle in the book, but I will have to go back and check.

Haidt recommends the Authentic Happiness questionnaire.