Sign in with Facebook
Thomas's Reviews > The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
by
by
From a psychological standpoint, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion earns five stars. The book loses some of its appeal when Jonathan Haidt veers into political philosophy, however - especially when he raises the biased question "why are religious people better neighbors and citizens?"
Let me backtrack. The Righteous Mind is split into three sections. The first focuses on how intuitions come first and are followed by strategic reasoning, the second shows that there are six moral foundations (Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation), and the third hones in on the belief that morality binds and blinds. By the end each part made sense in relation to one another and came together to pack a strong moral philosophy punch. Though the book had some dense sections - like the history and biology of moral philosophy - Haidt included interesting scenarios, research, and anecdotes to alleviate the doldrums.
My favorite aspect of the book was how Haidt looked at morality in many different ways; by the end, he writes that one thing he hopes readers will take away from his book is that there is not just one form of morality that applies to everyone. While I learned about some of the subject matter in my AP Psychology class last year, I had never heard of the six moral foundations before. The 100 pages of notes at the back of the book reveals how much work he put into his research.
But I didn't particularly agree with or admire how he framed conservatism as the better ideology in terms of incorporating all six moral foundations. Liberals also understand that if "you destroy all groups and dissolve all internal structure, you destroy your moral capital." Though he does a good job of stating that we need the opinions of both sides to form a more cohesive nation, he fails to elaborate on whether it's really possible to operate on a perfectly equal blend of every moral foundation. If we force people to obey authority and to submit to whatever is deemed sacred in that particular society, are we not therefore harming certain individuals and cheating others out of their rights? He praises religion and refutes New Atheism, but doesn't present the chaos religion can cause. What if we have a religion that operates to some extent on all six moral foundations, but endorses the extermination of Jews and prejudice against gays? Then what?
Overall, I recommend The Righteous Mind for anyone searching for a thought-provoking book regarding psychology, politics, philosophy, and religion. Jonathan Haidt did a great job of remaining almost absolutely neutral, though with a book like this I can't blame him for leaning toward one side instead of the other.
*review cross-posted on my blog, .
Let me backtrack. The Righteous Mind is split into three sections. The first focuses on how intuitions come first and are followed by strategic reasoning, the second shows that there are six moral foundations (Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation), and the third hones in on the belief that morality binds and blinds. By the end each part made sense in relation to one another and came together to pack a strong moral philosophy punch. Though the book had some dense sections - like the history and biology of moral philosophy - Haidt included interesting scenarios, research, and anecdotes to alleviate the doldrums.
My favorite aspect of the book was how Haidt looked at morality in many different ways; by the end, he writes that one thing he hopes readers will take away from his book is that there is not just one form of morality that applies to everyone. While I learned about some of the subject matter in my AP Psychology class last year, I had never heard of the six moral foundations before. The 100 pages of notes at the back of the book reveals how much work he put into his research.
But I didn't particularly agree with or admire how he framed conservatism as the better ideology in terms of incorporating all six moral foundations. Liberals also understand that if "you destroy all groups and dissolve all internal structure, you destroy your moral capital." Though he does a good job of stating that we need the opinions of both sides to form a more cohesive nation, he fails to elaborate on whether it's really possible to operate on a perfectly equal blend of every moral foundation. If we force people to obey authority and to submit to whatever is deemed sacred in that particular society, are we not therefore harming certain individuals and cheating others out of their rights? He praises religion and refutes New Atheism, but doesn't present the chaos religion can cause. What if we have a religion that operates to some extent on all six moral foundations, but endorses the extermination of Jews and prejudice against gays? Then what?
Overall, I recommend The Righteous Mind for anyone searching for a thought-provoking book regarding psychology, politics, philosophy, and religion. Jonathan Haidt did a great job of remaining almost absolutely neutral, though with a book like this I can't blame him for leaning toward one side instead of the other.
*review cross-posted on my blog, .
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
The Righteous Mind.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
August 25, 2012
– Shelved
January 24, 2013
–
Started Reading
January 29, 2013
–
Finished Reading
Comments Showing 1-3 of 3 (3 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Christine
(new)
-
added it
Aug 03, 2017 10:48AM
Excellent review, Thomas! Although I, for one, am disturbed by the book blurb that states, "If you're ready to trade in anger for understanding..." because the author is not fully unbiased. Psychology is meant to be totally unbiased, and scientific. I can see where morality can be addressed and investigated as a psychology topic, if one is seeking the motivations behind why/how people define morality differently. But (from your review and others) this author seems to be subtly implying that morality is inseparable from religion - which I do not believe. I find that implication dangerous, especially in America's current political climate. To me, the separation of church and state is inviolable, and politicians are meant to keep their religious views private, while serving their constituents/states/country. When people start believing that their own personal view of morality is paramount (for ALL citizens, not just for themselves), and that view invades politics, trouble ensues. I think this book is not for me. This feels like the kind of author who has deep-seated religious views, but also the intelligence and eloquence to present them in an "almost neutral" (as you say) manner, with the goal of influencing others. Scary.
reply
|
flag
Excellent review, Thomas and excellent comment, Christine! I also was left with the feeling that there was a lot that was left out. Or maybe that this was meant to be "volume 1" of a series. Thomas, I also wondered about the deeper problems with religion (when it endorses harm), and Christine, I also felt at times like the author may have some deep religious views himself. I feel that some topics were dealt with in excruciating depth, and other topics begged for comment. For instance, when he states that people who identify as liberals tend to only be motivated by 2 of the moral foundations, he ignores a deeper analysis. To take just one example, let's look at slavery/ Jim Crow and the legacy it has left behind. I would argue that "liberals" are very motivated by the other morality pillars in acknowledging the reality of the continuing effect of these two institutions on our society. This fits squarely into an awareness of ALL of the moral pillars.
Fantastic review. Thank you
