Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind ***

The main thesis of this book is that research in moral psychology (distinct from moral philosophy) supports the view that moral judgments are made intuitively rather than rationally, and that societies/political communities use a small set of fundamental moral concepts to construct conflicting but equally sincere moral codes. Haidt provides a fairly clear exposition of ideas I already shared.

The first third of the book argues that people make moral judgements intuitively rather than rationally. In Haidt's formulation: "Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second"; in David Hume's formulation: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." He points out that the most prominent moral philosophers––John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant––prioritize, even fetishize, rationality over other aspects of human flourishing.

The middle portion of the book identifies six moral "taste receptors" from which we build our moral intuitions. In Haidt's view, WEIRD liberals rely almost exclusively on two of the tastes (care and fairness) while WEIRD conservatives appeal to a wider palate. He doesn't explicitly make this point, but I noted that care and fairness are the easiest receptors to justify with dispassionate rationality. They don't carry the taint of irrational emotion that, say, loyalty and sacredness do. Like Mill and Kant, the liberal view prioritizes rationality. 

I wish I could say that the final section addresses the mechanisms that result in cultural variation and/or methods for communicating across moral matrices. How do cultural norms become pre-rational intuitions? Alas, Haidt instead tries to explain the evolutionary origins of the fundamental concepts. Early in the book he mocks evolutionary psychology for providing "just so stories," but here he indulges in the vice himself. The material is simplistic, obvious, and felt condescending toward conservatives and religious believers. He also suggests a genetic basis for political orientation despite earlier complaining that psychologists try to "explain away conservatism."

One insight I gleaned from The Righteous Mind is that liberal "egalitarianism seems to be rooted more in the hatred of domination than in the love of equality per se." Commentators often suggest than liberals equate fairness with equality while conservatives equate it with proportionality, but Haidt suggests that both sides equate fairness with proportionality, but that liberals believe inequalities to be largely the result of external factors. I was also intrigued by the studies regarding "altruistic punishment," which show that the ability to punish slackers is an important ingredient in fostering cooperation.