Thinking your fellow countrymen are “moral” or “immoral” here seems to refer to your views on their cultural norms— drinking, gambling, sexual practices, and political beliefs. If other people have the same cultural values as you, you’ll call them “moral”; otherwise, not. So in more culturally homogeneous societies, people have a higher opinion of others’ “morality”.

How much people say they “trust” others seems to refer more to threats to material security: can you count on people not to lie, cheat, steal, or aggress against you? Strangely, poll respondents do not seem to consider this morality, as there’s very little or even negative correlation between how much they “trust” people, and how much they think people are “moral”!

I think this somewhat vindicates my allergy to “morals” or “‘moralism”. Obviously it is wrong to lie/cheat/steal/attack/etc. But most people seem to use the concept of “morality” to refer to what I’d consider the private sphere or matters of opinion; the sort of stuff that makes juicy gossip, the sort of stuff where being “judgmental” is more of an indulgence in busybodying than a principled act.

If you say “Bob isn’t a very good person, but I trust him”, that evokes one kind of guy. Maybe rough around the edges, maybe cynical, maybe out for personal gain, but solid and safe, “honorable”.

If you say “Bob’s a good person, but I don’t trust him very much”, that evokes another type of guy. Weak, maybe? Two-faced. Well-meaning but low integrity.

I know who I’d prefer as a friend!

That suggests that “good person” (or “moral”) implicitly connotes something very different than “trustworthy” or “safe to be around.”