Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion delves into the psychological underpinnings of morality, aiming to explain why individuals with differing political and religious views often find themselves at odds. Drawing from social and evolutionary psychology, Haidt presents a framework that emphasizes the roles of intuition, emotion, and group dynamics in shaping our moral judgments.
Part I: Intuition Comes First, Strategic Reasoning Second
Haidt challenges the traditional view that moral reasoning is a conscious, rational process. Instead, he introduces the “social intuitionist model,” suggesting that moral judgments stem primarily from quick, automatic intuitions, with reasoning serving as a post-hoc justification.
To illustrate this, Haidt employs the metaphor of the mind as a rider (reason) on an elephant (intuition). The rider believes it leads, but in reality, it often justifies the elephant’s path. This model explains phenomena like “moral dumbfounding,” where individuals have strong moral reactions but struggle to articulate reasons for them. For example, when presented with a story of someone disrespecting a national flag in private, many feel it’s wrong but can’t pinpoint why.
Part II: There’s More to Morality Than Harm and Fairness
Haidt introduces the Moral Foundations Theory, proposing that human morality is built upon six innate psychological systems:
- Care/Harm: Sensitivity to suffering and the desire to care for others.
- Fairness/Cheating: Concerns about justice, rights, and autonomy.
- Loyalty/Betrayal: Allegiance to one’s group, family, or nation.
- Authority/Subversion: Respect for tradition and legitimate authority.
- Sanctity/Degradation: Feelings of purity and disgust.
- Liberty/Oppression: Concerns about domination and the rights of individuals.
Haidt argues that political liberals tend to prioritize Care and Fairness, while conservatives give more equal weight to all six foundations. This difference in moral emphasis can lead to misunderstandings and conflicts between the two groups. For instance, liberals might view conservative emphasis on Authority or Sanctity as oppressive, while conservatives might see liberal focus on Care and Fairness as neglecting social cohesion.
Furthermore, Haidt discusses the concept of WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) societies, noting that they often emphasize individualistic moral concerns, whereas non-WEIRD cultures may place more importance on community and tradition .
Part III: Morality Binds and Blinds
In the final section, Haidt explores how morality functions to both unite and divide. He introduces the idea of the “hive switch,” a psychological mechanism that allows individuals to transcend self-interest and become part of a cohesive group. This switch can be activated through shared experiences like rituals, music, or collective movements, fostering a sense of belonging and purpose.
However, this group cohesion can also lead to “groupishness,” where loyalty to one’s group results in hostility toward outsiders. While morality binds individuals together, it can also blind them to the perspectives and values of others. This dual nature of morality explains why political and religious conflicts are often so intense and intractable.
Conclusion: Fostering Understanding Across Divides
Haidt’s The Righteous Mind offers a nuanced perspective on the roots of moral disagreement. By recognizing that moral judgments are primarily intuitive and that different groups prioritize different moral foundations, individuals can approach political and religious discussions with greater empathy and understanding. Rather than viewing opponents as morally deficient, acknowledging the diverse moral landscapes can pave the way for more constructive dialogues and a more cohesive society.
