Image:
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
by Jonathan Haidt. Pantheon Books, 2012
In a world where people draw lines in the sand between religions and the vitriolic waters of politics make islands of ideologies, Jonathan Haidt’s new book, The Righteous Mind, offers a glimpse of hope.
According to Haidt, a professor of social psychology at the University of Virginia, logic is not a suitable guide for interpreting moral issues. To better explain the relation between our moral inclinations and conscious thought, he uses the metaphor of an elephant and its rider. The bulky elephant, which signifies our emotions, makes the first decisive moves along a moral trajectory. The rider, who embodies reason, attempts to steer the giant beast by concocting justifications for the new course. Understanding that our emotions are in control, Haidt believes, will help bridge the gap between groups with conflicting ideas.
Throughout the book, Haidt broadens the definition of morality to clarify why polarized groups, such as religious conservatives and atheists or Democrats and Republicans, often fail to see eye to eye. Morality, Haidt says, is not solely about fairness and preventing harm; it also incorporates notions such as liberty, loyalty and authority, and it serves to create bonds between people.
In the political realm, Haidt presents research to explain why Republicans and Democrats diverge as much as they do. Democrats care more about harm and fairness when making moral decisions than loyalty, authority or sanctity. Republicans, on the other hand, are better able to interweave these moral threads. Understanding that our feelings guide our behavior and that political adversaries have different emotional triggers, he writes, will help both groups come to terms with each other.
As for spirituality, Haidt argues that religions are ultimately less about believing in a higher power than about forming bonds with others and being part of something larger than oneself. To illustrate, Haidt draws parallels between religious groups and fans who pack college football games every week adorned in team colors, locked arm in arm and singing fight songs with their brethren. People are built to seek membership in a like-minded community, he attests, be it a Sunday church service or a stadium.
Though at times highly philosophical, Haidt’s book is a must-read if you want to understand how conflicts arise—and how we might prevent them.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentWhat an unpromising read this appears to be, although I can't make out whether it's the fault of the book or the review. All that is described here are a couple of platitudes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is going to be a loosing battle. People do not want to prevent battles; people want to create battles so they can prove themselves and their standing in their community. That is probably why we have so many political battles every year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Jeff, moral behavior is smart behavior. But to claim that it has anything to do with an immortal soul is pure fantasy. Following the rules is simply the easiest way to get along and get ahead in our society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelief patterns are so diverse on this planet that it is hard to believe that we are all one species.
And to follow up on James' comment...politics and sports, to me, are more about who I dislike rather than who I want to win. It's not about being a part of a group. It's about the groups that I DON'T want to be a part of and that I DON'T want to be successful.
Those are the battles that I seek.
Since Kant at least it has been philosophical dogma that reason leads us to ethical views; the alternative is called irrationalism. But if, in fact, ethical views are not based on reason but upon cognitive biases and dispositions it pays us to understand that, and Haidt's work is part of such a project. You cannot, when investigating a field empirically, presume your conclusion. That would be at the very least irrational.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReferring to Haidt, Brian Mossop said, "People are built to seek membership in a like-minded community, he attests, be it a Sunday church service or a stadium."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother example, unfortunately, is a street gang. When organized (fill-in-the-blank) groups function well, then sure, all is well. When organized religion, politics, business, crime turn to *believing* their own myths, be they "values" or some other rubric, then we see the current social fabric flaming into madness across bipolar gaps.
By the way, an excellent in-depth interview with Jonathan Haidt can be had at Bill Moyers web site: bill moyers dot com
"Democrats care more about harm and fairness when making moral decisions than loyalty, authority or sanctity. Republicans, on the other hand, are better able to interweave these moral threads."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat? That comment alone calls all the thinking here into question... On what basis do you have the standing to say Republicans "are better able to interweave" anything? I'm not sure it is interweaving so much as pushing for a worldview their dogma supports, regardless of the ethical harm caused, then trying to backward justify it into seeming like they made their choices out of caring about things like fairness and harm. In fact, that is what the article describes moral choices to be... picking one course for silly emotional reasons (elephant), then rationalizing the choice (driver)... but seconds later the article is saying when it comes to Republicans, this isn't the case, instead they are simply better at "interweaving" things. What hogwash.
Sure people's first gut reaction to ethical issues tends to be an emotional one, and pre-programmed by their cultural upbringing, and that is a hurdle all thinking people need to overcome. But training your mind to think rationally, and valuing those rational thoughts over the first emotional reactions, can help people make much more ethical choices. The problem with religion and spirituality is that they actively encourage the opposite path... glorying in the first emotional reactions and deriding and tearing down reason as inferior to feelings as a method of determining reality and ethics.
Yes, it is helpful for people to understand that emotion forms the first reactions to ethicical situations, but it is silly to say that then reason is powerless to do anything but then rationalize those decisions... we should recognize and encourage the fact that reason can then jump off the elephant, grab it by the ear, and turn it in the reasonable direction. Our rationality doesn't have to be a passive rider always deferring to our emotions just because they fire off a bit faster and easier.
Good points Tharriss makes. One nuance I hear Haidt trying to make between his lines is this: the locus organized religion performs, is less one of spirituality/emotional faith, and more one of a strongly working aggregator of allegiance to the gang. It is after all the same cohesive force working to keep all groups aligned to the group's set purpose.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat the organized religion's members assuage themselves by pointing to "Him" and other "divine" beliefs is merely frosting on their cake. Fluff. The cake is the gang.
My ears hear Haidt saying the prime rallying point of organized religion, from the point of view of its adherents, is not religion at all, but shared philosophy to "loyalty, authority, and sanctity" defined in the way they choose to define those terms.
It's fascinating to note that Haidt then observes, correctly I feel, that as soon as one "sanctifies" their beliefs, they become blind to evidence. His words.
Hilarious as only homo sapiens can be.
I think our languages and maybe our political systems force us into categories. We talk of being Democrat, Republican and Other, then our various leaders give us specific paradigms and tell us specific ways to vote on each issue. I doubt our languages could be changed much in that respect, but we could certainly get rid of the two-party, or any party, election system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes Daniel35, like you, I'd like to see the sham party system evolve into something intelligent, but that's asking alot of a people who spend more on celebrity issues than say education. At the moment, the two parties are like two sides of the same counterfeit coin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't want either one or the coin they're stamped on.
"As for spirituality, Haidt argues that religions are ultimately less about believing in a higher power than about forming bonds with others and being part of something larger than oneself."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBalderdash! Religions are ultimately about assuring people that death is really just an illusion and that their personalities will live on forever. Without promoting some version of this fantasy, no religion could survive.
Reason can be employed to train our emotional initial reactions, to empower alternative secondary emotional reactions, or merely to rationalize our emotional and totaly unconscious biases. Most of what happens in our brains, what we describe as "thinking" is subconscious, with a veneer of rationalization to justify ourselves to our own self image. That attempt to live up to our own self image is why people become so agittated and worked up over their ideological loyalties.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study of human behavior is a scientific inquiry, not a philosophical one. Though philosophy can be useful in the creation and framing of hypotheses, it is scientific methodology and study that illuminates.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point Haidt makes is that the theological ideology of any particular religion is little more than rationalization, a veneer to cover the 'us vs them' foundation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligions exist with ideologies that do not include the 'reality' of death, that 'believe;in reincarnation, or which define final death or an end to personal existence as the goal. The details of any religions ideology are irrelevant, as long as the perception of the religion and its adherents is compatible with the self image of the believer.