[Book Review] THE RIGHTEOUS MIND: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

“Morality binds and blinds … We circle around sacred values and then share post hoc arguments about why we are so right and they are so wrong. We think the other side is blind to truth, reason, science, and common sense, but in fact everyone goes blind when talking about their sacred objects.” – Jonathan Haidt

I was randomly scrolling through Quora when a particular answer caught my attention.

The section I was in had something to do with the ongoing polarization of our society. Though I sadly couldn’t remember who wrote it, the answer itself was nicely written. Long enough to cover everything, yet short enough to keep it interesting.

At the end of said answer, the writer recommended us a certain book to grasp the idea further—The Righteous Mind, written by a social psychologist of American nationality, Jonathan Haidt.

The book promised its readers a thoughtful insight into moral psychology. And 376 pages later, I proved it myself that the book really kept up to the expectations.

The author started by asking a rather provoking question.

A man goes to a supermarket once a week and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it.

Is it wrong?

Yes, most people would say.

Why? Because it will hurt the chicken? Shameful to the family? Or harmful towards the man’s health?

Let’s just assume that the chicken is dead, nobody knows or witnesses it, and the man uses necessary protection (e.g condom) to shield him from potential pathogen.

Is it still wrong if nobody—not the man, the chicken, nor his family’s dignity—is harmed by such act?

At this point, many people would’ve had given up answering.

So instead of answering it right away, the book introduced us to the main principles of moral psychology; intuition and reasoning. Plato insisted that reason ought to be the master of our mind, while Hume said that reason is, and ought to be, the servant of intuition. Jefferson offered a third option by stating that both reason and intuition are independent co-rulers. Throughout the book, the author stood by Hume’s side, supporting the latter’s view almost entirely. In sum, people do things they feel right first and make a rationalization on it later—hence, post hoc.

And then a new question arises; what, exactly, makes something feel right? By what—or rather, whose—standard do we deem things right or wrong?

We might find the answer right in the next section. To simplify things, the author made use of the customary political spectrum, especially in the U.S. Instead of trying to find out which side is ‘wrong’ among the conservatives, libertarians, and liberals, the book ditched such thoughts and introduced its reader to the six moral foundations; care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation and, much later, purity. Each ends of the spectrum relies heavily on different moral foundations (for example, Liberals put an emphasis on the care/harm foundation, as Conservatives on loyalty/betrayal), resulting in distinctly different views. We won’t be able to understand the way those who are ‘different’ fron us think if we don’t put our feet in their shoes. If the Liberals refuse to see through the other moral foundations sans the care/harm, then matters such as patriotism and national interest would seem ridiculous.

The third (and last) section of this book basically told us how morality binds and blinds. People tend to gather with those who think (or look) just like them. And not without reasons.

From evolution standpoint, those who are “different” from their group will be eliminated by natural selection (e.g people who charged at an angry big cat are least likely to reproduce compared to those who seek hidings. Because they’re more likely to die, duh). Their genes would be wiped off the gene pool.

Tribal competition also plays a role. A tribe in which its members share the same visions and values will have it easier to cooperate with each others. Individuals also tend to sacrifice their self interest more for the tribe’s greater good if there is a moral conduct at work. Such tribe will thrive and win against any less-cooperative tribes.

Indeed, humans are homo duplex. We are selfish, but also groupish when necessary—hence the social polarization, either politically or religiously.

---

The author Jonathan Haidt is a self-proclaimed liberal, yet it doesn’t hinder him from giving the Conservatives justice (he also wrote about the researches he conducted in many countries that hold conservative views). The writings flowed eloquently—many ideas were elaborated, but there were red strings among them. I felt like I was on point A when I started reading, and arrived in point Z without even realizing it since the progression was smooth—almost effortless. ‘Boring’ was the last thing I could think of as I got absorbed into the book chapter by chapter.

I like the way they use simple language and analogies in order to explain concepts clearer. This book delves into (U.S) politics, yes, but even people who have only an ample of idea on it (like me!) find it easy to comprehend.

(Oh, also you might find puns every here and there, if they are your thing.)

Should I read this book?

Go for it, I’d say.

Overall score: 8.8/10