Buy Now, Pay Later
As low as
$4
/ mo
Learn more
- – 4-month term
- – No impact on credit to apply
- – Instant approval decision
- – Secure and straightforward checkout
Ready to go? Add this product to your cart and select a plan during checkout.
Payment plans are offered through our trusted finance partners Klarna, Affirm, Afterpay, Zip, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. No-credit-needed leasing options through Acima may also be available at checkout.
Learn more about financing & leasing here.
Selected Option
Free shipping on this product
30-day returns
Learn more
FREE 30-day refund/replacement
To qualify for a full refund, items must be returned in their original, unused condition. If an item is returned in a used, damaged, or materially different state, you may be granted a partial refund.
To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.
View our full returns policy here.
Availability:
In Stock.
Arrives
Tuesday, Sep 22
Format: Hardcover, Illustrated
Description
NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER • The 1 bestselling author of The Anxious Generation and acclaimed social psychologist challenges conventional thinking about morality, politics, and religion in a way that speaks to conservatives and liberals alike—a “landmark contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself” (The New York Times Book Review). Drawing on his twenty-five years of groundbreaking research on moral psychology, Jonathan Haidt shows how moral judgments arise not from reason but from gut feelings. He shows why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have such different intuitions about right and wrong, and he shows why each side is actually right about many of its central concerns. In this subtle yet accessible book, Haidt gives you the key to understanding the miracle of human cooperation, as well as the curse of our eternal divisions and conflicts. If you’re ready to trade in anger for understanding, read The Righteous Mind. Read more
Publisher : Pantheon
Publication date : March 13, 2012
Edition : Illustrated
Language : English
Print length : 448 pages
ISBN-10 : 0307377903
ISBN-13 : 06
Item Weight : 2.31 pounds
Dimensions : 6.32 x 1.5 x 9.52 inches
Best Sellers Rank: #37,909 in Books (See Top 100 in Books) #1 in Psychology & Religion #3 in Church & State Religious Studies #3 in History of Religion & Politics
Frequently asked questions
If you place your order now, the estimated arrival date for this product is:
Tuesday, Sep 22
Yes, absolutely! You may return this product for a full refund within 30 days of receiving it.
To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.
View our full returns policy here.
To initiate a return, please visit our Returns Center.
View our full returns policy here.
- Klarna Financing
- Affirm Pay in 4
- Affirm Financing
- Afterpay Financing
- Zip Pay in 4
- Financing through Apple Pay
- Financing through Google Pay
Learn more about financing & leasing here.
Similar Products
Top Amazon Reviews
Format: Hardcover
This is an unusually difficult review for me to write, because I have somewhat mixed feelings about this book. I wanted to love it; and I actually did end up loving it a whole lot, but not quite as much as I was hoping to for some reason. I'm a political scientist with a background in sociology and a strong interest in psychology; so, as you might imagine, I've always had a fascination with social psychology in general and political psychology in particular. I haven't yet had the opportunity to teach a course on political psychology; but I've wanted to for some time now. I devour everything I can get my hands on that deals with the underlying psychology of political affiliation, political decision making, and political violence. In the course of my study of the subject I have encountered the work of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt on several occasions (if you search online you can find videos of him giving talks on his subject of expertise; and he also has a website -- YourMorals.org -- that deals with his work); and I've been intrigued and impressed with his unique approach to understanding political affiliation, as well as with his calls for greater civility and a willingness to compromise in the political arena. So, when I saw that he had written a book on political psychology, I simply had to read it. I began reading with very high hopes. Not only was I expecting this book to unlock the mysteries of why some people are "conservative" and others are "liberal"; but I was also hoping that this would be the ideal text to assign my students if I ever taught a course on political psychology. Haidt's book lived up to my hopes and expectations in some ways, but not in others. I would definitely recommend it to political psychology students; but I'm not sure that I would want to use it as the primary text for teaching the subject. I really did love this book; but as I was reading it I kept getting the nagging feeling that something about it was just a bit off -- something that I couldn't quite put my finger on. Now I don't want to leave the wrong impression; so I want to say up front that this is a wonderful, well-written, thought-provoking book that everyone ought to read. I've given it five stars because I genuinely believe it's worthy of the highest possible rating. Haidt's theory of political affiliation is original -- one might even say radical -- flying in the face of much of the conventional wisdom within the social and behavioral sciences; but if you are willing to consider Haidt's argument with an open mind, it actually makes a whole lot of sense. So, when I say that something about this book felt a bit off to me, please don't interpret this as a criticism of Haidt's theory, his approach to the subject, or his writing style. This is a book that you really ought to read, and that you will probably enjoy. That said, I still felt slightly dissatisfied after reading it; but it was hard to say exactly why. After some reflection, I think that my dissatisfaction was due to three things. First, I felt that Haidt's argument was a bit anticlimactic. Haidt spends most of the book laying the foundations for his theory of political affiliation; and the theory he finally presents is, at least in my view, quite compelling. But, after all that setup, I was expecting more of a discussion of how this theory can be applied to help us understand why different people hold such radically differing views on such a wide range of political issues. But Haidt skimped on the application of his theory. The main insight that Haidt gives us into why some people are liberal while others are conservative or libertarian is that a combination of nature and nurture has predisposed some people to build their morality primarily on just three core principles -- care, liberty, and fairness -- while predisposing other people to build their morality on six principles -- care, liberty, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity -- and still others to build their morality on a single principle -- liberty. As I'm sure you've guessed, those in the first group become liberals, those in the second group become conservatives, and those in the third group become libertarians. This is certainly an important insight; but I was hoping for more. For example, I wish Haidt had given us a bit more insight into how the three liberal values shape liberal policy positions, how the six conservative values shape conservative policy positions, and how the lone libertarian value shapes libertarian policy positions. He did briefly discuss some of the differences between liberal, conservative, and libertarian views of the economy; but he didn't really have all that much to say about the myriad other policy issues that liberals, conservatives, and libertarians routinely fight over -- e.g. abortion, equal pay, gay marriage, affirmative action, collective bargaining, voter access, immigration reform, taxes, entitlements, gun control, civil liberties, criminal justice, drug laws, military spending, the conduct of foreign policy, the appropriate use of military force, etc. Haidt's theory does provide a framework that can help us to understand why liberals, conservatives, and libertarians might take different positions on these issues; but he doesn't spell it out for us issue by issue. I really wish he had. I think it would have been very useful, and would have made his excellent book even better. Second, while I admired his efforts to treat liberals, conservatives, and libertarians with equal respect, and not to treat conservatism as if it were some sort of mental disorder (as many political psychologists are wont to do), I ultimately felt that he went a little too far in his efforts to be "fair and balanced", and ended up glossing over some of the biggest moral failings on the right (e.g. sexism, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry, jingoism, xenophobia, demagoguery, anti-intellectualism, and science denialism) in the interest of portraying conservative values as being just as legitimate as liberal values. Besides, the conservatism that Haidt found worthy of praise was old-fashioned Tory conservatism -- a cautious, genteel, intellectual form of conservatism based on the ideals of serious thinkers like Edmund Burke, who mainly just wanted to preserve society against the sort of chaos that often accompanies radical change -- which bears little resemblance to the "red meat" conservatism that prevails on the American right today. So, when Haidt advises us to pay attention to what conservatives have to teach us about what it takes to maintain a healthy, functioning society, he's really talking about old-school conservative intellectuals of the center-right, like George Will and Colin Powell, not the dogmatic culture warriors of the far-right, like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin. In fact, Haidt has relatively little to say about the conservatism represented by the evangelical Religious Right or the Tea Party movement, where ideological zeal often manifests itself as an ugly form of demagoguery. It's almost as if he wants to sweep this under the rug so he can sell the idea that mutually respectful civil discourse and bipartisanship are actually possible in this day and age. I think this book would have been better if Haidt had stuck to trying to explain partisanship rather than trying to find a cure for it. And third, although I found Haidt's argument quite compelling, there are certain aspects of it that might alienate some readers, causing them to simply reject Haidt's conclusions out of hand without much critical thought. The last thing I would ever want to do in a classroom is to alienate any of my students so they stop listening to what I have to teach. So I'm more than a little reluctant to assign a highly controversial text that many students will likely have a knee-jerk reaction against. Why might this book be controversial? For one thing, Haidt's theory draws heavily on evolutionary psychology, which is rejected by many on both the right and the left. Many progressives decry evolutionary psychology as "politically incorrect" because it argues that much of human behavior -- including such things as gender differences, xenophobia, and aggression -- may be innate parts of human nature that can never be changed by social engineering. Many conservatives, on the other hand, reject evolutionary psychology because they don't believe in Darwinian evolution at all. So Haidt's use of evolutionary psychology may be enough to cause some readers to reject his argument outright. In addition to this, he bases much of his argument on the evolutionary principle of "group selection" -- a theory that has been pretty firmly rejected by biologists for several decades now, but which Haidt argues ought to be reconsidered. But perhaps the most controversial part of Haidt's argument is his treatment of religion. Haidt himself is an atheist; so he makes no pretense of actually believing that any religion is "true". He looks at religion purely from a psychological and sociological perspective in an attempt to figure out what function religion has played in human society throughout history. Yet he forcefully rejects the anti-religious fervor of the so-called "New Atheism" popularized over the past decade by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens, among others, with its assertion that religion is a dangerous "meme" -- a "virus of the mind" -- that is inherently harmful to human wellbeing. Haidt devotes an entire chapter to refuting the New Atheists' claims about religion, arguing that religion has actually been a force for good in the world which serves to strengthen social bonds and discourage individual selfishness, and that religion is actually a product of natural selection. So, his treatment of religion is unlikely to win Haidt any friends from among either the devoutly religious or the fervently irreligious. And, on top of all this, Haidt defends conservative values that many liberals find abhorrent, arguing that they are just as vital to the wellbeing of society as are liberal values. So, suffice it to say that this iconoclastic book is liable to alienate many different people for many different reasons. Haidt butchers a lot of sacred cows in these pages. So, I suspect that plenty of folks will simply reject everything that he has to say out of hand. While I am an advocate of open-minded critical inquiry, I'm also a pragmatist. I know that many of my students are not going to be as open-minded as I would like them to be; so, as an educator, I have to be sensitive to this if I want to help them learn. A little controversy in the classroom can be healthy; but too much can derail the entire lesson plan. I wouldn't want the class to get sidetracked by debates over tangential issues that are not directly relevant to the subject I'm trying to teach. So, if I were to teach a course on political psychology, I would be a bit hesitant to use this book as the main text for fear that students would get too distracted by some of its more controversial elements. However, I would consider using this book as a supplemental text, and would definitely put it on the recommended readings list. Anyway, these three problems are relatively minor, and do not detract from the overall quality of the book. They simply leave me ever-so-slightly dissatisfied, perhaps because my expectations were unreasonably high. I would certainly recommend Haidt's book. I really do feel that it deserves to be read and talked about. There's no doubt in my mind that it deserves a five-star rating. But I'm afraid that the five stars I give it will have to come with an asterisk.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on April 26, 2012 by Gregory J. Casteel
Format: Kindle
I cannot recommend this book enough! If you can only read 5 books in your lifetime, this should be one of them. I tell everyone I can to read it, and what I always say is that you need to at least read the first few chapters. The book is split into 3 "Parts" which build on each other but are quite different in focus. If you can't read the whole thing, at least read part 1 because it's a game-changer! If you can't read all of part 1, at least read the first 2 chapters. Unfortunately, I can't really give away what part 1 is about because at the end of part 1 he states that he had to present it exactly the way he presented it or you would think he was crazy (because of the exact principle he's teaching!). Honestly, if everyone in the world read this book the world would be very different. It's that much of a game-changer! It's information you literally won't find anywhere else. The fields of moral psychology and sociology are very separate and have come up with directly opposing consensuses that can't both be true. Jonathan was in a unique position finding himself working with both and that set him on a course to try and use both the individual psychology with the effects of culture to lead him to the truth. This took him on a very different course and the research and experiments it led to showed that both fields were wrong. The conclusions are undeniable, make so much sense, and will blow your mind and completely change how you view the world. Part 2 deals with the different types of morality and focuses more on religion. I don't agree with all of his conclusions here, but I think there's a lot of truth there and it's important to learn what he presents. Part 3 talks specifically about politics and that both extremes not only both have value and truth, but that they need each other. Just like we all have tongues with various tastebuds, so do we all have various "tastebuds" for different types or morality. Most people fall into one of two categories which are distinguished by the groups of tastebuds we are sensitive to. Left-leaning people tend to be very sensitive to one type of morality and not very sensitive at all to the other types, while more right-leaning people are more balanced in having moderate sensitivity to a wider range of morality types. Neither group is better than the other, but rather they are both very important, yet neither side understands the other or values the types of morality they are sensitive to. He then goes into more practical examples about important issues and how each side interprets them and why they view them the way they do. Neither side should demonize the other, but rather we should understand our own limitations, understand the other side's limitations, appreciate the other side's strengths, and understand how we need each other. I know that sounds pretty wishy-washy or like an impractical attempt and forcing harmony, but it's not. It all makes a bunch of sense and you will learn exactly how "good" people can be so divided on important topics like politics and religion. The other side aren't idiots and they aren't evil, they are just seeing things that you don't see. Jonathan is a liberal atheist and I'm a conservative Christian. We come from completely opposite backgrounds, but my own research has led me to the same place that Jonathan Haidt was led to and I've actually had some conversations with him (I reached out to him after reading the book). Every Christian needs to read this book, despite the author's atheism. Please please please read it!!! And bug all your friends until they read it as well!
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on December 5, 2014 by thegrants
Format: Paperback
Everyone is so angry at each other. Social media is a mess. Everyone just screams and treats their opponents as evil. But when everyone is Hitler how can we live together? The Righteous Mind is a fascinating book which seeks to help us understand one another. I have actually come across Jonathan Haidt before in some of his online lectures. He is very balanced, insightful and I enjoyed this work. In this book, Jonathan does a great job describing the social function of morality (not the content of morality). He describes the function of religion as well. It feels a bit weird to be under the microscope as one of the religious people he is describing. Jonathan is actually very positive about the societal benefits of religion while aware of its liabilities. And that is the major insight and contribution of this book: seeing how morality functions within various communities, religions and political groups. The book is divided into three parts which make up Haidt’s view of morality: Part I: Intuitions come first, Strategic Reasoning Second The key debate regarding morality is the relationship between intuition (emotion, passion) and strategic reasoning (cognitive processes). There is the Plato model which says that reason leads and intuition follows. There is the Jefferson model which says that reason and emotion are co-pilots each operating equally. And then there is the Hume model which says intuition leads and strategic reasoning follows as a servant. Haidt argues for the third model. The key metaphor he gives is an elephant with a rider on its back. Intuition is the main driver with reason acting as a rider who is essentially justifying the movement of the elephant. His argument isn’t that the elephant is always right or that it cannot be controlled. Rather his argument is that if you are going to change people’s minds then you have to go beyond just the cognitive and appeal to their intuition as well. Haidt argues for better-trained riders and elephants. Part II: There’s More to Morality than Harm and Fairness Part of the problem we face is that morality is often reduced down to harm or fairness. But morality is more complex than that. If one takes in western and non-western cultures we find there are actually six foundations of morality: care/harm, liberty/oppression, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation. The key metaphor here is a tongue with six taste receptors. There are some things which taste sweet to those who call themselves liberals and conservatives. There are things which taste sweet to religious people and the non-religious. Those on the liberal/left side of things tend to have very strong inclinations toward the care/harm and fairness/cheating foundations. Conservative/right leaning folks tend to have a mixture of all six. Now Haidt is politically liberal. He has spoken at democratic conventions and written for left-leaning publications. He is not saying that one group is better than another. He is simply trying to help each side understand the other. Why do those on the left prize marginalized groups? Why do they say the rich need to pay their “fair” share? Because they are high on the care, oppression, and fairness foundations without much concern for loyalty, authority or sanctity. Why do conservatives care about people kneeling for the American flag and the Christian heritage of the nation? It isn’t because they don’t have care, oppression or fairness foundations but that these three are basically on par with the other three: loyalty, authority, and sanctity. This isn’t an argument about who is right, but insight into understanding how people come to their moral conclusions. Part III: Morality Binds and Blinds While we are certainly individuals Haidt argues that we are also naturally “groupish” and prone to tribalism. He doesn’t see this as a bad thing, but a necessary trait in order for people to form cohesive communities that maximize human potential and encourage human flourishing. According to Haidt, a shared morality helps to bind together communities which foster trust and trade while discouraging largely damaging behaviors. The key metaphor here is that people are 90% chimps and 10% bees. We function very much individually, but we have a “hive switch” which activates in us from time to time. For instance when we go out in nature and are overcome by how vast it is. He cites military service, college football games and going to church as other examples. Basically, it is whenever we are caused to forget that we are individuals and consider ourselves as a part of a whole. But this doesn’t work on a universal scale. We just don’t operate in that way. Nor should we. When the hive becomes the sole identifying factor it goes wrong for that is fascism. But when you have a series of connected smaller hives it produces greater happiness and social cohesion. Conclusions Haidt’s purpose in this book to help us understand each other and how we arrive at our moral judgments. To that end, I think he does a fine job. Interestingly, apart from the evolutionary origin stories I found very little in this book which would contradict the Christian worldview. We are individuals who need community and certainly have a shared morality. As Biblical Christians, we wouldn’t say it is our Christian morality which binds us together. Rather we would say it is Christ who unites us together. Further, our morality doesn’t just ascend out of the group think of evangelicalism. Our morality comes from divine revelation in the scriptures. So would I recommend this book? It is well written and very insightful, but I can’t say I would recommend it to everyone. If you want to dive into moral psychology then yes I would recommend it. If you are able to read and benefit from someone who doesn’t share a Christian worldview, then I would recommend it. More likely I would recommend starting with Haidt ’s book which he co-authored with Greg Lukionoff entitled The Coddling of the American Mind.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on February 6, 2019 by Eric Mabbott
Question authority -- your own righteous mind and the self-righteous certainty of your religious or political sect. Haidt's appeal to reasoned self-knowledge contradicts his main message -- that your opinions are largely driven by unconscious intuitions and those who believe reason guides human action are victims of the "rationalistic delusion." Haidt is a certified "top world thinker" [wikipedia] so all who think about morality, religion, politics have to read this excellent, challenging, enormously informative book, a powerful contribution to the old "nature-nurture" debate. As it has been widely reviewed and praised, I will focus on some criticisms. His study of a vast range of material from philosophy to neuroscience, and his original research, forms the basis of his "moral science." Is it good science? Less than 40% of psychological research is replicated (scientificamerican). He boldly makes an argument (chapter 9) in favor of a theory of natural selection at the group level. Group selection isn’t widely accepted by evolutionists, but it's useful for Haidt's theory of innate moral foundations, the "groupiness" of humans coded in their genes and in "gene-culture co-evolution.". For good discussion search Haidt + Steven Pinker / Massimo Pigliucci / Sam Harris / Daniel Dennett /Jerry Coyne / John Jost. He quotes colleagues who note that "nearly all our research in psychology is conducted on a very small subset of the human population: people from cultures that are Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (forming the acronym WEIRD)." (96) This unrepresentative set probably skews the results. I think another bias, not mentioned, may result from much of the work being done with college students -- in addition to being WEIRD, they are young and inexperienced in the adult world of work, religion, politics. He cites (99) previous research which identifies three major clusters of moral values: 1) autonomy cluster: individual liberty, rights, justice, equality. 2) Community cluster: submergence in family, army, tribe, religious sect, nation; values duty, hierarchy, respect, reputation, patriotism, self-sacrifice. 3) divinity cluster: sanctity/sin, purity/pollution; soul/spirit/mind is spark of divinity, the body is a holy temple not a playground; individualism is denounced as libertinism, hedonism, disobedience, sacrilege; taboos prohibit acts that degrade a person (miscegenation, homosexuality) or dishonor the Creator or violate the sacred order. "The ethic of divinity is sometimes incompatible with compassion, egalitarianism, and basic human rights." (106) Cluster 2 and 3 were the basis of social control for millennia; it was a fierce struggle in recent centuries that elevated cluster 1, autonomy. Haidt seems to deprecate this achievement. Developing this theory further, Haidt identifies five clusters, or "moral foundations." His theory posits innate disposition or intuition, partly genetic, partly cultural, to exhibit values and behaviors on one or more of these five clusters. They are: Care/harm, Fairness/cheating, Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Sanctity/degradation. He finds that liberals rely on the first two predominately; conservatives rely on all five, which may "give conservative politicians a broader variety of ways to connect with voters." (154). Perhaps a game point to conservatives, but does that valorize the code of ancient regimes? An example of politicians exploiting moral intuitions of conservatives is the North Carolina legislature drafting and passing in one day a law which responds to disgust/fear about transsexuals using the wrong bathroom -- a few months before a tight election. Trump expressed disgust at Clinton's use of a restroom--many were embarrassed, but maybe Trump knew what he was doing. Ongoing research and criticism convinced Haidt that his five foundations failed to fully explain moral and political values. More analysis is needed on the cluster of values around Liberty/oppression. This oversight is strange, as Liberty is the central moral value of modern liberalism, at the root of the Enlightenment, the American Revolution and our Constitution and Laws. Other values he believes need study are Proportionality (a division of Fairness), Honesty, Property (the main concern of moralists like Abbe Augustin Barruel and Edmund Burke!). I have seen conservatives misuse this book to say it proves conservatives are more intelligent or moral than liberals. Haidt is not saying which moral cluster is best: the theory is a descriptive analysis of how people think. But he allows such misinterpretation by lecturing liberals on their need to honor conservative intuitions. In the U.S., he says, these five or six clusters of moral intuition are at the root of the left-right political conflict. Can we explain current political conflict as growing out of genetically embedded feelings? Can we describe as "morality" attitudes based on Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity without evaluating specific attitudes or acts? He says Democrats are naive because they respond to a narrower set of "moral tastes" than conservatives. (157) That's a value judgment. If we are being urged to choose our moral foundation, we need to discuss specifics: appeal to loyalty gave us McCarthyism; appeal to authority gave us a war based on lies; appeal to sanctity gave us slavery and homophobia. The "five moral foundations" are not equal in merit for guiding moral choice. Haidt acknowledges this criticism but does not, in my opinion, make a satisfactory revision of his analysis. The "research" consists in the questions and stories framed, and the body of respondents selected. I think questions and stories could be framed that reveal liberal embrace and conservative rejection of Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity. Do you loyally honor the President even if he is a black Democrat? Should persons and corporations comply with the authority of the IRS and the EPA to make rules, and respect the authority of scientists on issues like evolution and human-caused global warming and species extinction? Does sanctity (purity, avoidance of disease) motivate citizens to support FDA in protecting the purity and healthfulness of consumer products? Do you approve the disloyalty of the American Revolution? Of the Confederate rebellion? Do you support the authority of the Supreme Court (and the value of autonomy) to say gays have the right to marry? It is not a great revelation that liberals care more about Care/harm and Fairness/cheating and Liberty/oppression than about Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity. Has Haidt proven that conservatives do not value autonomy higher, or is it merely that they are more easily triggered by the older codes? If one catalogs all the "triggers", gut reactions, fear, hate, superstition associated with each "foundation", it's not hard to see where the higher morality is -- which conservatives and liberals perhaps equally embrace. Surely most Americans highly value the overthrow of millennia of tyranny under monarchy, aristocracy, theocracy and the enshrinement (new content for Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity??) of liberty, justice, equality. Haidt puts cleanliness, avoidance of disease, and such under Sanctity (purity), and implies liberals don't value this cluster much. That's clearly wrong, and he acknowledges that "the Sanctity item showed no partisan tilt; both sides prefer clean[liness]" (162). Learned responses are wrongly defined, it seems to me, as "intuitive" or gut instinct. EGGs show the brains of liberals and conservatives react differently to significant words without deliberation. Yes: the brain has already learned the meaning of words, and the meanings vary with one's learning. His famous metaphor -- the mind is divided into parts, like a small rider (conscious reasoning) on a very large elephant (automatic and intuitive processes) -- is upside down. He says the metaphorical elephant is in charge, but a real rider or trainer of an elephant is clearly in charge of a very powerful animal. The power of intelligence to control atavistic impulses is the foundation of civilization. His other metaphor -- humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee -- is equally misleading. Bees don't think, so where is human intelligence in this metaphor? "Democrats often pursue policies that promote pluribus at the expense of unum, policies that leave them open to charges of treason, subversion, and sacrilege." (185) He doesn't say the charges are fair, but he says Ann Coulter's book "Treason: Liberal Treachery" "says it all" (141) What it says to me is that hateful slanders of liberals are popular among conservatives. What does Haidt think it says? Such charges are bogus (McCarthyism) and a "morality" that motivates them is atavistic. The thesis of the book is that Republicans successfully appeal to these (atavistic--my word) impulses. If liberal politicians decline to push these effective (atavistic) triggers, is that evidence of truncated moral foundations? In chapter 11 Haidt criticizes three scientists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, for books denouncing religion as delusion. (He omits Victor Stenger, physicist, philosopher, atheist, who has written a dozen books on science ["flies us to the moon"] and religion ["flies us into buildings"].) Haidt faults them for focusing on belief in supernatural agents. Haidt says that is not the principle function of religion, which is to create community. But state churches created warring communities until our new constitutions disestablished religion. Haidt is advocating a "Durkheimian model" is which humans are fully human only as part of a social group. He acknowledges the danger -- the value creates fascist societies too (271) but still he defends group loyalty and authority as a necessary foundation for morality. Don't liberals support building social cohesion? Doesn't the American "creed" enshrined in our Constitution and Laws give us a superior unity without blind loyalty or obedience to (what other?) authority? Haidt quotes two archetypal narratives on pages 284-285 that give us a clear choice. The "liberal progressive narrative" seeks liberty and justice and has "succeeded in establishing modern, liberal, democratic, capitalist, welfare societies." The "Reagan narrative" calls on good Americans to "take back" the nation that has been "undermined" by anti-market, anti-American, anti-family, criminal-coddling, flag-burning liberals. [How many liberals have ever burned a flag?!] The merit of the conservative narrative, relying on all five (or six) "moral foundations", where conservatives smear liberals as flag-burners, escapes me. It's a dishonest caricature. A caricature from Haidt: liberals see only individuals, while conservatives see that essential moral community arises from "the complete community." (292) [But it was conservatives who ridiculed Hillary Clinton for borrowing the African wisdom "it takes a village to raise a child."] Another Haidt caricature, unscientifically taken from conservative rhetoric: liberals think fairness means equal outcomes. No liberal theorist or Democratic leader takes that position. Haidt defines morality near the end of the book (270) : "Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make co-operative societies possible." He is clear that he is describing, not prescribing, morality. He includes "technologies" but omits "rational guidance for good behavior" or the idea that morality "make good societies possible." But calling bad ideas and behaviors a system of morality is confusing. Morality usually implies the search for ideal or prescriptive values, even if the search is unending and full of disagreement. Here is a better definition, IMO, from the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy -- "morality, an informal public system applying to all rational persons, governing behavior that affects others, having the lessening of evil or harm as its goal, and including what are commonly known as the moral rules, moral ideals, and moral virtues." I think liberals and conservatives would subscribe to this. It addresses the social aspect of morality, in contrast to Haidt's claim that liberals "focus intently on individuals" while conservatives "recognize that human flourishing requires social order" (272) -- a false dichotomy. Hillary Clinton's theme was that flourishing societies are necessary for the development of flourishing individuals. Despite his disparagement of "the rationalist delusion" (28, 88) his work is rational/scientific and he expects his book to influence rational persons toward civility and cooperation. This is an affirmation of the power of learning to shape morality. It made me more sympathetic toward people who differ from me. This is an important book and Haidt earns great deference -- respect for authority -- for his mastery of a vast literature in philosophy and science, and for his ongoing industry. He is associated with several websites that continue this research.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on April 8, 2016 by Richard E. Hayes
Format: Paperback
This is a superb book, one which everyone interested in politics, religion and human nature should read. Haidt studies moral psychology and utilizes its insights to help us understand why some of us tilt left and others tilt right, politically. The argument is presented with great lucidity and in military-instructor-education rhetoric. The principal principle of MIE is: ‘tell ‘em what you’re going to tell ‘em; tell ‘em; tell ‘em what you told ‘em.’ This is common within the social sciences. The argument is outlined, then made, then summarized. This is very helpful when the material is complex, as it is here, and it helps you to both digest and remember. The key orientation is Humean. Hume said that the reason is, and always should be, the slave of the passions, a point that seems very counterintuitive for an Enlightenment thinker. Rather than substitute ‘emotions’ or ‘sentiments’ for ‘passions’, Haidt uses the word ‘intuitions’. Basically he is saying that our ‘gut sense’ on any issue is more important than the ratiocination which follows. That gut sense is the result of millions of prior experiences and observations that all come together to form an intuitive response to a given notion, proposition, experience, thought experiment, etc. When we then discuss the matter with another person, particularly one who takes a different approach, we consult our reason and personal/historical data sets for evidence and arguments that will enable us to win the discussion. The metaphor that he uses is a man riding an elephant. The elephant is our collective set of intuitions and the tiny rider is the Reason, which tries to influence the elephant, a weighty though not entirely impossible task. Basically, Haidt is using this metaphor to help us to understand where each of us is ‘coming from’ so that we might bring more understanding and empathy (rather than unsheathed daggers) to our discussions. The core of the argument is that we argue from moral matrices. Each of these matrices are the result of evolutionary experience. The privileging of a moral matrix (care & fairness, e.g., for liberals; loyalty vs. betrayal, e.g., for conservatives) is based on a matrix’s evolutionary importance. Caring for one’s children or for the other members of our tribe conferred an evolutionary advantage; being loyal to our tribe and preventing free riders conferred an evolutionary advantage, and so on. Haidt identifies six matrices and explains in detail how he arrived at these. The psychological research involved both dry neuroscience (constructing test instruments) and wet neuroscience (putting test subjects in fMRI machines and watching actual brain activity in real time/space). The important conclusion of this work is that, he argues, liberals tend to focus on just one matrix—care—while conservatives focus on a multiplicity of matrices, including loyalty, authority and sanctity. This is not argued simplistically. He points out, e.g., that ‘fairness’ is common to all of us, but that the left tends to stress equality (some even arguing for equality of result, not just opportunity), while the right tends to stress proportionality, i.e., those who work harder, contribute more, etc. should receive appropriate rewards, while slackers should receive less. Conservatives, he argues, have a stronger case to make, since they draw on a wider range of matrices. He argues his general points with great fairness and objectivity, acknowledging that he himself began as a liberal atheist but one who had life-changing experiences (doing research in India, studying Durkheim, etc.). His final recommendations with regard to how we might bridge our current political divide are well-meaning but less effective than the overall attempt to encourage understanding represented by his book (e.g., his hope that legislators might reside in Washington rather than in their home districts so that they might interact socially, as they once did). The political divide has, of course, deepened since 2012, when the book was first published. If you want to understand why people believe what they do, this is a wonderful place to start. Note that he even argues that certain elements of our political orientations are genetic. He also explains how the pop-psychological explanations which the left and right use to describe one another are not to be trusted, but shows—through his own test methods—that the right has a better understanding of the left than the left does of the right. Such passages will make the book controversial, but his overall tone of scientific goodwill will help keep the readers’ own passions in check and open to his point of view. Very highly recommended.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on August 18, 2017 by Richard B. Schwartz
I thought this might be a timely read given that the world's largest democracy is now in the middle of the largest free and fair election in the history of mankind. Indeed, my intuition was rewarded! As with anyone else I find myself increasingly engaged in defending or deriding parties, candidates, ideologies, and the politics professed by anyone within reading/ hearing range from me. I sincerely hope this book lets me take a more informed and empathetic stance going forward. What surprised me with was the universality and appeal of several of the concepts the book professes. Don't be misled by the subtitle - it is not only about politics and religion, although they do find coverage. This is a book most clearly about morality. Yes, I know. I groaned a little too, initially. Such a loaded word! Bear with the author though, because he is extremely careful about how he uses it. In fact, it takes him 11 chapters (in a 13 chapter book) to even define it. Before he gets there, he has several worthwhile points to make, such as this gem: Your rational mind is a small rider sitting atop the elephant that is your intuition - more often than not, the rider merely (if elaborately) justifies what you already know to be 'true'! Or this one: There are six axes/ dimensions to morality, much like there are ye many tastes that make up flavor; but most people only focus on one or two! Ware the moral monist! Or maybe this one - we humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee, and we have a hive switch. Er - I promise that last makes sense when you read the book. :) After laying some good groundwork for his theories, Mr Haidt then proceeds to rebut the New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins who dismiss religion as a 'harmful side effect' of human evolution. He is very successful at this, and managed to make me see organized religion in a different light by changing the terms of the debate. He did this mostly by pointing out that dogma, or even belief in gods or a God is a small part of religion. What makes up religions - and makes them valuable - is their ability to make people cohere to causes and to each other. He also goes on to analyse the American political landscape in terms that go back to his 'six axes of morality' concept, and largely succeeds. I think he is far too forgiving to conservatives and libertarians, but that might just be the rider talking from atop my liberal elephant! The book is extremely well written, but not without flaws. I thought a few times Mr Haidt used rhetorical flourishes and fancy tricks in place of true arguments. A few 'facts' were presented as axiomatic, when actually they needed justification and so on - but these are all minor problems in a book that otherwise exudes sanity, and reasonableness. It is very well structured though, being written as a persuasive argument from start to finish, with plenty of footnotes (which I ignored after a while, caught up in the narrative flow). I also appreciated how each chapter, as well as the book overall, is accompanied by a nice Cliff Notes style 'In sum' section at the end. So here's my own 'In sum' section for this overlong review - read this book. If you're an atheistic, liberal-bent, science-minded, once-extreme-rationalist-but-now-more-empathetic, profundity junkie like me, it will probably be a game changer for the way you think. It might also help you empathize a bit more with the people around you, and dismiss far fewer 'opinionators' you see as hacks (or worse, demons!). The best part is this - you don't even need to accept the author's arguments or even his proposed framework as true or accurate for this. You just need to read through, think about it a bit, and let your own elephant and rider nudge you one way or another. Will be worth it, I can guarantee it!
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on April 27, 2014 by Hrishikesh Diwan
Format: Kindle
I found this book to be among the best I have read in providing a thoughtful balanced description of who we are and why we behave the way we do. I sense that Haidt’s desire to write this book centered on helping us understand ourselves; not because he wanted to becoming wealthy or famous. I learned quite a bit from reading it. Having written that, as informative as Haidt is, I think there is more to consider. Perhaps, in the spirit of Smith’s ‘invisible hand,’ above the dynamics of genetics and culture is a set of environmental dynamics that control both the elephant (emotions) and the rider (reason). For example, If, by forming groups, we identify ourselves as liberal, conservative, or libertarian while retaining (without addressing) our individual selfish natures, selfishness will become a major force that overpowers all other interests and intentions (i.e., overcome the elephant) even while we genuinely believe that our motivations are other-oriented. J. R. Saul offered an excellent analysis of political and economic factors in "Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West." Jacques Ellul, of course, among the cornucopia of his writings, has described the (interfering) role that technique and technology play. Renė Girard described another set of possible candidates in his explanation of mimetics. In “The Weight of Glory,” C.S. Lewis offered still another perspective. I find myself agreeing with them all; perhaps I am too naïve. To over-generalize... The selfish liberal finds security not by helping the oppressed become free, but by keeping the oppressed oppressed or by broadening the definition of oppression and convincing an increasing percentage of a population they are oppressed. The selfish power that the liberal wants to maintain and reinforce is directly related to her or his ability to convince others about the level of oppression and the size of the populace who is oppressed. (J.R. Saul pointed out that many who obtain positions within government so they can help others, soon turn that position into one of personal power. Before long, helping others becomes a secondary byproduct to the key goal which becomes keeping and expanding one’s power and position.) The selfish conservative finds security not in helping others find similar levels of security, but by ensuring hers or his security (possessions or stature) is always better than those whom she or he helps. The selfish power of the conservative is directly related to the percentage of people in her or his environment who want what she or he has. (Girard posited that respect for others because of who they are, what they have, or their power evolves into emulating them, then envying them, then competing with them, and then trying to depose them. The struggle culminates by identifying, sacrificing, and deifying an idol that substitutes for what they first respected but could not achieve). In either case, it is far too easy for the oppressed to become the oppressor and, in the process, produce the opposite of what they first intended to produce. If the prime characteristics of liberal or conservative excluded self-interest, there would be empirical evidence of their success in helping others. That evidence is lacking. The evidence that exists, seems to point to the failure of both groups in moving toward and achieving their original goals. From what I can tell, since the beginning, governments have been moving away from what the original founders wanted and designed, churches have been moving away from what their founders and first practitioners taught and prayed, and the purposes and functions of public schools have been moving away from what their founders envisioned. We should not let appellations like childish, foolish, trite, or absurd prevent us from pointing out that loving others must accompany if not precede service if we are to help others. If neither helper nor the helped are transformed to become better persons in the ‘helping’ process, helpers risk doing more harm than good. Here, I reference the type of love that expects nothing in return and the acts that stem from ‘purity of heart’ as Kierkegaard put it. If we ever hope to form a community, as Haidt (and a plethora of others) proposes, helping others become more like us, is like wanting all parts of our bodies to be the same. This will not work. As Paul put it log ago in his first letter to the believers at Corinth, “If the ear says ‘because I am not an eye, I am not part of the body’ it is not. . . any the less a part of the body. if the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?” “Above all,” Peter wrote, “keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.” Perhaps Nussbaum focuses on this in “Political Emotions: Why Love Matters for Justice.” Based on Haidt’s recommendation, I have just begun reading that book.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on July 15, 2021 by MLSB
Format: Kindle
Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Random House, 2012, pp. 528) Review by Rudolf Bisanz, Ph.D. GETTING ALONG IN THE TOWER OF BABEL Professor Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind, is a noteworthy and estimable effort in the art of socio-political persuasion. He received accolades for his fresh taxonomy of behavioral ethics, and for his reconfiguring of the order of virtues and their antipodes. Their reapportioning between our nation's two major contending political affinities has generated much debate. Criticism has come mostly from partisan opponents of his fiery allocation of human instincts that privilege politico-orthodox standards. And from psychologists declaiming his appropriation of morality by ordinarily instinctual incentives. But it is above all Haidt's resolute call for reconciliation in these our times of boundless cultural aggravation that is most helpful and deserving of praise. As scholar and publicist, Haidt's work is notable for skillfully combining thorough analysis with stylistic appeal to a mass readership. He adeptly protects his arguments from lateral attacks of academic reviewers by means of a dilated scholarly apparatus. All along, though, his brisk delivery lunges onward with enthralling ideas, entertaining slogans, and virtuoso styling. His flamboyant performance is being acknowledged by a large audience of neophytes and experts alike. Haidt solves the chicken-egg conundrum on the primogeniture on "whence morality" in the manner of Columbus' egg, by assertively blunting its shell. For him, neither moral theories nor political reason lastly decides righteous ideology or action. Rather, they are mobilized by an amalgam of urges, instincts and inherent motivations. This ebullient cluster of stimuli he groups into six antonymous, contrapuntal modules: Care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. Liberals, according to Haidt, have two values, care and fairness, versus the Conservatives' five: Care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity. This imbalance suggests to our author that Conservatives are likely more adapt at understanding Liberals than the other way 'round. No few psychologists and sociologists have inveighed against Haidt's determined bundling of ethical positioning and moral grounding of righteous action along lines of political suasion alone. His abstemious regime strikes many as arguable, when an insinuatively modified approach might be more fitting. Significantly though, and irrespective of Haidt's ceding to Conservatives a "privileged" stance, his overall thesis embraces mutual acquiescence. For him, it is necessary for all of us to get together and converse with one another in a civilize manner. Studies in philosophy and psychology at Yale and Penn State, and research at the University of Chicago and "field work" in India preceded Haidt's teaching assignment at the University of Virginia. He is currently the holder of an endowed chair, the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, at the Stern School of Business of N. Y. U. His extended job description, synonymous with his academic specialization, is "the intuitive foundation of morality," as well as the veritable content of The Righteous Mind. His book appeals to the prosaic circumstances in which he presumes the folks of his mass target audience dwell. Significantly, he expects them to experience their morality intuitively, as, we may assume he thinks, behooves them. Intuition is the foundation of all business ventures commonly referred to by ace entrepreneurs as "a play" or "the game." Thus, we may allow, that, as intuition-mediated speculation is inherent in business (his institutional milieu and worldly support), so intuition-mediated morality is inherent in ethics. Haidt offers his reading public a glimpse of a form of reflective "Americana" of wise sensibility as assuaging antidote to national conflict. That he manages to present it in a mixed academic and populist genre is editorially adroit, culturally notable, and commercially productive. Our broken civil community craves numinous food and Haidt provides it bountifully. Over time, he personally evolved from an assumed atheism to a more hopeful, if tentative, religious Weltanschauung. In the process, he has mastered the role of conciliator of today's diverging political and cultural spectra along intersecting, indigenous and populist national feedback loops. An American "virtuous cycle." Skillfully combining a compliant style with pedantic scholarship, his documentation falls nothing short of "formidable." In addition to the Bible, he cites an utter plethora of authors. This inundation of "expert opinion" includes the usual suspects to be anticipated in a disquisition on morals and sociology, including I. Kant, W. James, I. Berlin, J. Piaget, E. Durkheim, L. Kohlberg, E. Turiel, the Dalai Lama. Haidt's is an ingenious balancing act between liberalism and conservatism, atheism and belief, sociology and metaphysics. The initial gambit of Haidt's "Two vs. Five" morality play is instinct over reason as matriculation for decision making and moral action by normal folks. Assuming that his point of entry is right, it would appear that he anchors his approach in actual human behavior as understood by him. Should, thus, his instinctual moral paradigm be amply defensible, then it would become difficult to argue against his position as a whole. As to the classificatory issues concerning the scholarly nature of his "play," it is my contention that his gambit is non-classificatory in terms of academic genres of perusal. By virtue of his resolute aim to cut the Gordian Knot of our national discord, and for popularization's sake, he places himself outside the realm of normative and restrictive, disciplinary taxonomy. As to Haidt's comments and findings throughout, at their core they may not be overly prototypical. But because of their fresh orchestration, and consistent focus on promoting civil concord, they realize his purpose as a feat in polemics. Furthermore, they act as a notable apologetic in behalf of his chosen political outlook. One way of approaching Haidt is from a perspective of a single academic discipline, objectively, and through an antipathy-originant approach, one likely to yield negative critical tremors. Conversely, a sympathy-mediated assessment of his work, adapted to the complex gestalt of his multiple disciplines, is likely to yield approbation of his work. Elements of pragmatism, intuitionism, psychology, sociology, and metaphysics merge flawlessly within his popularizing approach. Being as universalizing as it is imaginative, Haidt's overmuch documented discourse may indulge in "measurelessness," perhaps even artful naiveness. Yet, in today's ideological chasm, his purpose strikes strong notes of the practical, conciliatory, and worthwhile. His is both an invitation to reintroduce a civilizatory strain into a degenerate "body politic," and to infuse some needed harmony into a choleric national discourse or, better said, national wrangling. Haidt's crucial call for "getting along" is a welcome reprieve from an America as the Tower of Babel. Haidt practices Lebensphilosophie as Weltanschauung, his m. o. to success. He is a multi-disciplinary, academic theorist and mainly "right-leaning" polemist, who writes synchronously for his fellow scholars and the broad public. He senses the dire danger lurking in today's political America riven by failure to communicate, and pleads to be understood holistically and "face-to-face." My initial and continued positive evaluation of Haidt's theories rests on holistic grounds, as well, e.g., his intellectual prowess, conciliatory tone, universalizing persuasiveness. Moreover, I base my evaluation on a nonpartisan assessment of his effectiveness of adjuring his particular, politically weighted case. His intelligent and accessible intellectual world can open one engaging avenue to understanding ethical impetus and moral motivation in the real life of any reader willing to communicate.
...
show more
Reviewed in the United States on April 12, 2013 by Amazon Customer