"whereas conservatives include all five elements in their moral reasoning." ?

Is this a jonathan haidt opinion?

Based on your bio, you're based on Germany. Are you an expat?

The basis for my moral code -- and decision-making -- is the principle of minimum violation of human dignity and respect, and minim damage of human and environmental well=being. I think that more than covers your questions.

I have long suspected there is a methodological fly in Haidt's ointment (please forgive the biblical reference). He seems to be peculiarly selective in just exactly what he tests, and what he doesn't. I respect his work as far as it goes, but I don't think it tells the whole story.

For example, Harm care and Fairness reciprocity are, to me, unconditional. There are virtually no circumstances under which the potential recipient would not morally deserve those two considerations. Again for me, Ingroup loyalty, Authority respect, and Purity sanctity are strictly conditional. They are, in other words, deserved when they are deserved, but they aren't always deserved.

If a group I am a member of is planning to commit a crime, they have lost the moral claim to my loyalty. If my President commits treason, he no longer deserves to have me respect his authority (potential resemblance to any real circumstance is purely coincidental). And there is no moral sanctity deserved when the purity in question is racial, for example.

Maybe the real difference between liberal and conservative morality is which group of concerns are considered unconditional and which conditional. Please forgive my bias, but it seems to me that, in general, conservatives are more likely to feel that loyalty, respect, and purity are unconditional, but you deserve only as much fairness or healthcare as you can afford. It's conditional upon whether you earned it.

I haven't read everything Haidt has written, but some, and have watched a lot of his videos, and have never heard him address this gap in his studies.

In MY opinion, conservatives do NOT give consideration to "people" in any way. Conservatives are interested in economics and finance ONLY. It's all about the money, baby. How their policies affect "people" is of little concern to them. Again, just my opinion based on my interpretation of what I see conservative policies are and do. Your mileage will vary.

I do not find the above very informative or compelling. If that is from some survey or study it seems time wasted to me. Following are my personal opinions.

Law are in theory there to benefit the population. The questions seem to me to be negative ones. I would prefer a positive approach.
Did help people? If so how did it help?
Handing out charity can actually be a destructive thing.
Sometimes charity is needed but simply handing someone a ten dollar bill may not actually help them.
There is also the difference between the laws of a nation and morality. Laws are in theory made to benefit the population of the land. Morality is a more personal matter. Morality can have its bad or negative part. It can be neutral neither harming or helping anyone. It can be positive in that it does help all parties involved.

What the government does is a community matter. What I do is my responsibility and I am the one who must live with the consequences of my actions, legal or moral.

I take issue with the notion that conservatives are somehow more "moral" than liberals, or anyone else for that matter.
My experiences and observations have been the complete opposite.

I also tend to reject these types of 'pronouncements' as frequently false and
usually in service to an agenda.
This is another reason I have little use for philosophy.

Sorry to disgree. I find conservatives to give lip service to the ones you ascribe to them, but not practice them. Do as I say, not as I do. Good at practicing hypocrisy.

We would be better off if we didn’t make moral judgments at all IMO.

Very interesting, I only gravitated to the first two!