Loading profile…
Loading profile…
Book
Jonathan Haidt · 2012
Haidt's argument is that moral judgment is more like taste than like proof: we feel rightness and wrongness first and reason afterward, and the feelings run along several distinct foundations that people and cultures weight very differently. Much disagreement, on this view, is not error but different foundations bearing different loads.
Sequence ladder
Narrative Intelligence sources live outside the figurative image sequence ladder. Adaptive placement applies to image sequences, not this reading library.
What this book knows
Moral intuitions precede reasoning, and six innate taste buds explain why good people's politics and religions divide them so bitterly.
mind-and-cognition
Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second — the elephant rules, though sometimes open to persuasion.
RMJ-RC-045Even when subjects recognized their victim claims were bogus, they still refused to give up their moral judgments.
RMJ-RC-023Emotional areas of the brain are the right places to look for moral foundations; losing them interferes with moral competence.
RMJ-RC-053obedience-and-authority
Conservatives are more likely to view the body as a temple and to invoke sanctity; liberals and conservatives differ vastly on purity.
RMJ-RC-113Society emerged organically as people bound themselves together, suppressing selfishness and punishing deviants who threaten cooperative groups.
RMJ-RC-123belonging
We are all stuck here for a while — this book is about why we are so easily divided into hostile, certain groups.
RMJ-RC-002Illuminates
Editor’s framing
Vela cites The Righteous Mind for the dispositional map it offers — care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, liberty — set beside the situational mechanism of in-group/out-group dynamics. It is useful for reading the moral texture of the religious communities the corpus engages without flattening them into a single morality, especially where the loyalty and sanctity foundations run hot. Read it for the reframe that the people you find baffling are not failing at your morality; they are running a different one.
Featured passage
Now imagine society not as an agreement among individuals but as something that emerged organically over time as people found ways of living together, binding themselves to each other, suppressing each other’s selfishness, and punishing the deviants and free riders who eternally threaten to undermine cooperative groups. The basic social unit is not the individual, it is the hierarchically structured family, which serves as a model for other institutions. Individuals in such societies are born into strong and constraining relationships that profoundly limit their autonomy. The patron saint of this more binding moral system is the sociologist Emile Durkheim, who warned of the dangers of anomie (normlessness) and wrote, in 1897, that “man cannot become attached to higher aims and submit to a rule if he sees nothing above him to which he belongs. To free himself from all social pressure is to abandon himself and demoralize him.” A Durkheimian society at its best would be a stable network composed of many nested and overlapping groups that socialize, reshape, and care for individuals who, if left to their own devices, would pursue shallow, carnal, and selfish pleasures. A Durkheimian society would value self-control over self-expression, duty over rights, and loyalty to one’s groups over concerns for out-groups. I showed that a Durkheimian society cannot be supported by the Care and Fairness foundations alone.18 You have to build on the Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity foundations as well. I then showed how the American left fails to understand social conservatives and the religious right because it cannot see a Durkheimian world as anything other than a moral abomination.19 A Durkheimian world is usually hierarchical, punitive, and religious. It places limits on people’s autonomy and it endorses traditions, often including traditional gender roles. For liberals, such a vision must be combated, not respected. If your moral matrix rests entirely on the Care and Fairness foundations, then it’s hard to hear the sacred overtones in America’s unofficial motto: E pluribus unum (from many, one). By “sacred” I mean the concept I introduced with the Sanctity foundation in the last chapter. It’s the ability to endow ideas, objects, and events with infinite value, particularly those ideas, objects, and events that bind a group together into a single entity. The process of converting pluribus (diverse people) into unum (a nation) is a miracle that occurs in every successful nation on Earth.20 Nations decline or divide when they stop performing this miracle.
Now imagine society not as an agreement among individuals but as something that emerged organically over time as people found ways of living together, binding t…
Read alongside · the magazine
Natural law as one tradition's account of the moral foundations Haidt maps.
Read alongside · the emotions
The affect behind the sanctity foundation — moral intuition felt before reasoned.
Scholars: Jonathan Haidt
6 published passages · book excerpt · research analysis
Reader resonance signals for text sources are not wired to this view yet.
the psychology of survey response
A Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma: The Abhidhammattha Sangaha of Acariya Anuruddha
The Battle for God
The New Interpreter's Bible, Volume XI
Computerized Adaptive Testing
Take Back Your Life: Recovering from Cults and Abusive Relationships
The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Evolution of Human Nature
The Historical Jesus