Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (affiliate link). (New York: Pantheon Books, 2012). 419 pages.
Jonathan Haidt is an interesting writer who draws heavily upon his own and other scientific studies. I have also read his books The Happiness Hypothesis (affiliate link) and The Coddling of the American Mind (affiliate link), both of which were also very good. Haidt is not a Christian. In fact, he would most likely claim to be a Liberal atheist. Therefore, I don’t agree with all his conclusions. But it is interesting to see how honest scientists are often led to similar conclusions as people who accept the Bible as truth.
In this book, Haidt examines why people hold such radically different views on religion and politics. As an evolutionist, he seeks to understand how people determine what is right or wrong. He also tries to comprehend why certain people value one type of “fairness,” whereas another group prizes a different aspect of fairness. He explores influential studies and theories and provides some interesting conclusions.
He begins by stating, “This book is about why it is so hard for us to get along” (xi). He notes that two of the most divisive and vexing topics are politics and religion (xii). Haidt defines “righteous” as being “just, upright, virtuous” (xiii). He claims that “. . . an obsession with righteousness (leading inevitably to self-righteousness) is the normal human condition. It is a feature of evolutionary design . . .” (xiii). He argues that “righteous minds enabled humans to produce large cooperative groups, tribes, and nations without the glue of kinship” (xiii).
Haidt’s fundamental question is, “Where does morality come from? Is it from nature or nurture? (5). The nativist assumes morality is innate. The empiricist believes it is learned. A third approach is that of rationalism, which posits that people figure out morality themselves (5). Haidt examines various historical approaches to morality. He notes that there are many morals that have nothing to do with harming others (13). He also found that some approaches to morals, such as that of Kant, were too cerebral and failed to take into account people’s emotions (11).
David Hume argued that reason ought to be the slave of passions (25). Conversely, Plato believed reason should be supreme over passions (28). Thomas Jefferson provided a third option, which was that our reason and passions should be balanced (29). Haidt notes that Charles Darwin argued that people came with their brains pre-wired (31). Darwin rejected social Darwinism, which claims that there is nothing inherently evil with superior races dominating inferior ones. Haidt suggests that much of moral reasoning was merely “a post hoc search for reasons to justify the judgments people had already made” (40). Haidt argues that emotions are not stupid (45). He refers to “innate” responses rather than “emotional” reactions. He claims, “Intuition is the best word to describe the dozens or hundreds of rapid, effortless moral judgments and decisions that we make every day” (45).
Haidt popularized the illustration of a monkey riding an elephant (46). Though the monkey is in the driver’s seat, it is only an illusion that he can control the vastly larger elephant. Thus, Haidt compares reason (the monkey) to our emotions (the elephant). He notes, “The rider is skilled at fabricating post hoc explanations for whatever the elephant has just done” (46). He adds, “It became extremely valuable for elephants to carry around on their backs a full-time public relations firm” (46). Haidt calls his approach the Social Intuitionist Model of moral judgment (48).
Haidt suggests that you cannot change people’s minds by utterly refuting their arguments (48). He argues, “If you want to change people’s minds, you’ve got to talk to their elephants” (48). Haidt’s first principle is, “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second” (52). He adds, “Elephants rule, although they are sometimes open to persuasion by riders” (55). Haidt offers numerous examples of how people are motivated more by their intuition than they readily admit. He notes that juries are more likely to acquit an attractive defendant (58). He claims we make snap judgments and then our reason seeks to justify our decision (59).
He cites a study in which people who were asked to wash their hands before answering questions became more moralistic about issues such as pornography (61). He posits that the elephant is more powerful than the rider, but it is not a dictator (68). He notes that we are terrible at seeking evidence that challenges our own beliefs (68). Nevertheless, other people can change our minds under certain circumstances. He acknowledges, “But if there is affection, admiration, or a desire to please the other person, then the elephant leans toward that person and the rider tries to find truths in the other person’s arguments” (68).
Haidt cites the Greek story of Glaucon. Glaucon suggested that if people were invisible, they would not act as morally as when others could see them (73). Haidt agrees and suggests that our morals are strongly influenced by the approval or shame of others (74). Haidt argues that even people with high IQs invest their intelligence in buttressing their currently held positions (81). He notes that most people will cheat if they are given the right circumstances (83).
When it comes to politics, he suggests that “Our politics are groupish, not selfish” (86). He notes, “Like rats that cannot stop pressing a button, partisans may be simply unable to stop believing weird things. The partisan brain has been reinforced so many times for performing mental contortions that free it from unwanted beliefs. Extreme partisanship may be literally addictive” (88). Ironically, he notes that library books on ethics “are more likely to be stolen or just never returned than books in other areas of philosophy” (89).
Haidt points out that WEIRD people (white, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic) are outliers. “They are the least typical, least representative people you can study if you want to make generalizations about human nature. Even within the west, Americans are more extreme outliers than Europeans, and within the United States, the educated upper middle class is the most unusual of all” (96). Haidt notes that we must be careful when making generalizations about humanity as a whole when our studies or viewpoints come from the west or are heavily influenced by a particular demographic in the US.
Haidt’s second principle is that “There’s more to morality than harm and fairness” (98). The west, for example, values autonomy. People outside the west value community (99). There is also a value of divinity, which helps people feel what is sacred (100). Haidt suggests that just as people have five taste receptors, so they have six fundamental senses when it comes to values or morals (112). Interestingly, he notes that “. . . reasoning can take you wherever you want to go” (122). He adds, “In psychology, theories are cheap. Anyone can invent one” (127). He also states, “Behind every act of heroism and human decency you’ll find either selfishness or stupidity” (128)
Haidt suggests that our brains come pre-wired but not fully developed. He argues that it is like a book, “the first draft of which is written by the genes during fetal development. No chapters are complete at birth, and some are just rough outlines” (130). Haidt posits that “Nature provides a first draft, which experience then rewrites . . . ‘Built in’ doesn’t mean unmalleable; it means ‘organized in advance of experience’” (131).
Haidt suggests that everyone cares about fairness. But there are two major kinds of fairness: proportionality and equality (138). Conservatives value proportionality, whereas liberals value equality. He notes that “If we had no sense of disgust, I believe we would also have no sense of the sacred” (149). As an atheist, Haidt observes, “Whether or not God exists, people feel that some things, actions, and people are noble, pure, and elevated, others are base, polluted, and degraded” (150). He cites Leon Kass who said, “Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder” (153).
Haidt notes that partisan liberal or conservative brains act differently within half of a second of hearing information (163). He observes that “When the threat of punishment is removed, people behave selfishly” (179). While Haidt originally maintained five moral foundations, he added a sixth, “liberty/oppression” (169). He suggests, “I don’t think we can understand morality, politics, or religion until we have a good picture of human groupishness and its origins” (190). He suggests, “The bravest army wins, but within the bravest army, the few cowards who hang back are the most likely of all to survive the fight and go home alive and become fathers” (193). He adds, “Real armies, like most effective groups, have many ways of suppressing selfishness” (194).
Haidt suggests that as humans evolved, “. . . early humans domesticated themselves when they began to select friends and partners based on their ability to live within the tribe’s moral matrix” (211). He notes, “We are more likely to mirror and then empathize with others when they have conformed to our moral matrix than when they have violated it” (216). Haidt suggests that it is better to emphasize people’s similarities rather than their differences in order to decrease the divisions in society (239). He notes that “People are warmer and more trusting toward people who look like them, dress like them, talk like them, or even just share their first name or birthday” (239). He adds, “There’s nothing special about race” (239).
Haidt acknowledges that religion encourages morality. He notes that “Creating gods who can see everything, and who hate cheaters and oath breakers, turns out to be a good way to reduce cheating and oath breaking” (257). Interestingly, he found that the greater the sacrifice religious communities demanded of its people, the longer it lasted (257). But when secular communities call for sacrifice, “every member has a right to ask for a cost-benefit analysis” (257). Haidt notes that religious people donate and volunteer more, even to non-religious causes (265). He also points out that atheistic societies are the “least efficient at producing offspring” (269). Haidt argues that there are biological differences in how liberal and conservative brains function (278). Not surprisingly, conservatives react more strongly to change (278). Haidt offers his analysis on the strengths and weaknesses of liberals and conservatives (294). Though a self-professed liberal, Haidt acknowledges the strengths of many conservative views.
Interestingly, Haidt notes that where there is a Whole Foods store, there is an 89% chance that county voted Democrat; where there is a Cracker Barrel restaurant, there is a 62% chance the county voted Republican (311). He states that once a person joins a political team, they get ensnared in its moral matrix (312). He cautions that morality both blinds and binds (313).
Haidt seeks to demonstrate that people develop their religious and political views innately, and they are reinforced after identifying with a particular group. He encourages people to find ways to appreciate and value other perspectives. Interestingly, he found that liberals could often see no possible way in which conservative views could be legitimate or ethical. Certainly, this finding could explain why there is such polarization in society today.
Haidt is a scientist who identifies as liberal, Democrat, and atheist. Nevertheless, he makes a sincere attempt to follow the science where it leads. He shares how many of his original opinions changed as a result. Though you are unlikely to agree with all his conclusions, Haidt will make you think. The scientific studies he mentions are fascinating and often enlightening. Because he is an atheist, his solutions can seem a bit too general or nebulous, nevertheless, you may find much to chew on as you read this book.
Rating: 3
