Originally Posted by Ocean
You got the idea right. It doesn't matter whether we're talking about 5 or 6 different foundations. The meaning is that those are roots from where moral principles develop. Having more roots isn't better than having fewer roots. Besides, Haidt explained that those foundations weren't measured in a present or absent metric but rather quantified. So one group may score higher in one of those dimensions than the other. According to their findings, Haidt summarized it by saying that liberals tend to base (they score higher) their moral principles on concepts of fairness and care/avoidance of harm. Conservatives value other principles highly as well: loyalty to authority, favoring the ingroup, and concepts or purity or sanctity. It doesn't mean that liberals don't give importance to the last three, but that they aren't as strong as the first two. If you think of liberals as challenging authority, challenging the status quo, valuing principles above alliances and defying concepts of sanctity, then it all makes sense.
The value that you can attach to the resulting morality has nothing to do with the number of factors that originated it. And the relative value of each of those factors is of course, debatable.
So, the interpretation that having more factors from where moral principles are founded is somehow better or superior or preferable only shows poor understanding of what Haidt has described. There were a couple of diavlogs on this, and there multiple articles and talks by Haidt all over the internet that spell out these ideas pretty well.
Thanks Ocean, since I am treading on thin ice here, as far as background and experience, your perspective helps confirm my suspicions that saying group x has 4 out of 6 and when group y was asked the had 6 out of 6 might be an oversimplification. And I think this is getting clarified to some degree. I'm curious, were there any conclusions concerning those that didn't identify with any particular group?