Book Review: The Righteous Mind

“People bind themselves into political teams that share moral narratives. Once they accept a particular narrative, they become blind to alternative morals worlds.” (p. XXIII)

Photo by Ed Ortiz

In early June, I wrote a post titled The Human Side of Economics. In it, I discussed a review by The Economist of Alvin Roth’s book, Moral Economics. The reviewer commented that while Roth demonstrated a strong concern for individual autonomy and reducing suffering, he tended to avoid deeper debates about why people find certain transactions morally offensive. I mentioned at the time that I was reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, and wondered if Haidt might have the answer to that question. Having finished it, the book definitely provides an answer to that question—and to many others, for that matter.

In his conclusion, Haidt summarizes his core premise:

“This book explained why people are divided by politics and religion. The answer is not, as Manichaeans would have it, because some people are good and others are evil. Instead, the explanation is that our minds were designed for groupish righteousness. We are deeply intuitive creatures whose gut feelings drive our strategic reasoning.” (p. 370)

Perhaps that is the answer The Economist’s reviewer was looking for, but I am still not totally convinced.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion was an excellent read, though it wasn’t without its challenges. I found myself getting angry with the author at times. However, a comment previously made to me by Dr. Stein kept coming to mind: “Haidt is a research psychologist and will give you quite a different view than…” Remembering this helped me work through my initial friction. It allowed me to shift my focus, evaluating the book through the lens of social psychology rather than ethics and philosophy, and I ended up enjoying it.

I think philosophers, especially the Stoics, are right in arguing that human beings have the capacity to evaluate what is right and wrong, good and bad, through reason. At the same time, biology and genetics may play a role in shaping human behavior. That is one possible explanation for how figures such as Hitler and Mussolini emerge in history. Of course, that is merely my opinion, so let me return to the review.

Moving back to the review, Haidt divides the book into three parts: Part 1, Intuitions Come First, Strategic Reasoning Second; Part 2, There’s More to Morality than Harm and Fairness; and Part 3, Morality Binds and Blinds.

One feature I really liked, and that I also noticed when reading The Anxious Generation, is that Haidt provides a summary at the end of each chapter. I find this tremendously helpful.

He doesn’t shy away from telling readers that he is both a liberal and an atheist. That doesn’t bother me in the least because I always try to keep an open mind and engage with different viewpoints. However, I can see how some readers might shut down, stop reading, or simply dismiss his arguments because of those disclosures.

To illustrate his points, Haidt relies heavily on narrative. I won’t recount those specific stories here because they are quite provocative, but I recognize why they were necessary to properly assess people’s moral intuitions.

He proposes many hypotheses, but I’m not sure he definitively answers any moral questions. He also draws from philosophers such as David Hume, as well as scientists and psychologists, to frame many of his views and hypotheses. As a result, it can be difficult to pinpoint his personal position—or at least it was for me. This book is worth a second reading, however, and perhaps I’ll see it more clearly the next time around.

It is also worth noting the book was published in 2012, well before the modern political era. One of the hypotheses Haidt discusses, drawing on Glaucon’s dialogue with Socrates in The Republic, is:

“The most important principle for designing an ethical society is to make sure that everyone’s reputation is on the line all the time, so that bad behavior will always bring bad consequences.” (p. 86)

Looking at the current political landscape, that principle unfortunately feels like a relic of the past.

Several other highlights stood out to me during my reading:

“Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out and interpret new evidence in ways that confirm what you already think.” (p. 93)

“But in psychology our goal is descriptive. We want to discover how the moral mind actually works, not how it ought to work, and that can’t be done by reasoning, math, or logic.” (p. 141)

To map this descriptive psychology, Haidt and his colleagues created the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, which measures how strongly people value Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. On pages 184 through 187, he maps this data on a scale from 0 (not at all relevant) to 5 (extremely relevant). The data shows that “very liberal” individuals score exceptionally high on Care and Fairness but very low on Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. Meanwhile, “very conservative” individuals score relatively high across all five areas. 

I generally dislike questionnaires, but data collection is a necessity in social psychology. They even created a website where readers can answer questions and see how they score on the various moral foundations. If you’re interested, you can learn more at YourMorals.org.

One of the biggest points of personal disagreement for me came from page 283:

“When I began writing The Happiness Hypothesis, I believed that happiness came from within, as Buddha and the Stoic philosophers said thousands of years ago. You’ll never make the world conform to your wishes, so focus on changing yourself and your desires. But by the time I finished writing, I had changed my mind: Happiness comes from between. It comes from getting the right relationships between yourself and others, yourself and your work, and yourself and something larger than yourself.”

That argument was confusing to me, and I disagree with it. I believe happiness begins within. Once a person develops inner stability and contentment, they are better able to enjoy relationships, meaningful work, and something larger than themselves.

Haidt uses two heavily overlapping definitions to ground his final chapters:

  • Moral Systems: “…interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate self-interest and make cooperative societies possible.” (p. 314)
  • Moral Capital: “…the degree to which a community possesses interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, and technologies that mesh well with evolved psychological mechanisms and thereby enable the community to suppress or regulate selfishness and make cooperation possible.” (p. 341)

A lot of repetition, I know. Haidt does that throughout the book, but he uses these concepts to make a poignant political point:

“…if you are trying to change an organization or a society and you do not consider the effects of your changes on moral capital, you’re asking for trouble. This, I believe, is the fundamental blind spot of the left. It explains why liberal reforms so often backfire, and why communist revolutions usually end up in despotism.” (pp. 342- 343)

Following this, he spends a significant portion of the book (pages 343 to 364) framing modern politics through the lens of Yin and Yang, leaning on the philosophies of John Stuart Mill and Bertrand Russell to suggest that liberals and conservatives are both necessary, balancing elements of a healthy political ecosystem.

He leaves the reader with some practical advice on how to bridge these deep divides:

“So the next time you find yourself seated beside someone… don’t just jump in. Don’t bring up morality until you’ve found a few points of commonality or in some other way established a bit of trust. And when you do bring up issues of morality, try to start with some praise, or with a sincere expression of interest.” (p. 371)

That’s good advice, assuming people are open-minded and willing to engage in that kind of discussion.

There weren’t many “aha” moments for me in this book. Haidt learned through his experiences in India and other countries that cultures and moral systems vary considerably around the world, and those experiences clearly shaped his thinking. He seems to suggest that morality begins with gut feelings and intuitions, and that people then use reason to justify those intuitions and align themselves with groups that share similar values.

That may be true for many people. However, I believe there are also individuals who carefully examine competing worldviews and arrive at moral convictions through reflection and reason. Such people may understand different perspectives without feeling compelled to abandon their own moral framework simply to fit a new narrative or cultural trend.

I recommend this book to anyone looking for a basic understanding of our current, fractured political environment, especially if you want to understand the tribal instincts behind group alignment. However, if you are looking for a deep, rigorous ethical or philosophical argument, this is definitely not the book for you.

About the Author:

Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in 1992.

38 thoughts on “Book Review: The Righteous Mind”

  3. I would say you are spot on with your point regarding happiness originating within. Much can still be gleaned from Buddhist and Stoic philosophies without being a strict adherent of either. I find it hard to swallow that either “liberal or conservatives” can be graded on “moral foundations” or either label be shown to grade higher than the other. Heard any sound bites from capitol hill that remind you of Socrates lately?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Absolutely! The more I read philosophy, the more I’m convinced of that. Yes, grading liberals and conservatives was one of the things that made me a little angry, but then he is a researcher and needs to find ways to measure things to validate his theories. I think it is wrong, but I guess he doesn’t have any other choice. Soundbites? All the time. Sometimes I get this urge to write posts with philosophical quotes and what is coming out of Washington, D.C., but I hold back and just think about those things during my reading and journaling time.Thank you for reading and commenting.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  4. Edward, a fantastic and comprehensive review of the book. Great job on the post!

    it is very very tough – as you have seen – to neatly wrap up our moral platform in one book….HONESTLY. and i emphasize this because much of morality, whether it is in a group setting or by individuality is contextual and can be moved by certain forces and constraints.

    i personally feel that books like these, especially in the way you have comprehensively reviewed it, skew to “directionality” of the concept rather than the actual concept itself. I have thought about this in varying degrees enough to conclude that a directionality is not precise enough to make conclusions on because on a long enough time axis, i.e. the formation of nation states, a very different consensus could emerge and the spectrum of it could literally stretch from one side being completely autonomous to the other side of it being constrained by illiberal forces.

    all this being said, your comprehensive review looked at the entire spectrum of the argument and that is why I appreciate the post. the book, as you and I could both objectively look at, is a different story.

    again, great job Edward. you should definitely get a cup of coffee or something as I’m sure typing and proofreading this for rigor must have been quite a project.

    Mike

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Thank you very much, and absolutely. A couple of days of work and a lot of coffee. There is no other way. 😂 You made some great points, and what I’m finding out is that a lot of current experts are trying to come up with answers to moral problems that philosophers and religion already answered hundreds and thousands of years ago. It’s like they don’t like those answers, so they need to come up with new theories. I believe that those from the past have the right answers.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. you’re right Edward. i often make the point that the difference between those older answers and today’s newer ones are far smaller than people think and it’s only because those answers accounted for the generalities of a world that was not stratified under layers and layers of nuance.

        i am aware someone can say that this is using directionality but I would also argue that once the “language” of the moral dillema is simplified and distilled to its most common denominator, we will come precisely to the answer of those philosophers 2 millennia ago and up!

        enjoy that coffee!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. You’re spot on, my friend. It’s amazing to see the clarity of those philosophers—well, after some translation and language updates, of course. That’s why I’m spending a portion of my day reading those guys and trying to understand how they saw the world.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    1. Good question, JT. In page XIX, he said the following: “I could have titled this book The Moral Mind… But I chose the title The Righteous Mind to convey the sense that human nature is not just intrinsically moral, it’s also intrinsically moralistic, critical, and judgmental.”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  6. I’ve been looking forward to your review of this book and you did not disappoint. As I mentioned before, I read it 5 or 6 years ago and remember coming away feeling like I gained a new way of thinking about why there might be such a divide in our politics although I couldn’t remember details. I think you review it quite well and appreciated that you shared some of your thoughts and ideas you disagreed with and also pointing out that he was coming from a social psychologist perspective rather than an ethical or philosophical one. I was glad to get a refresher. Thank you Edward!

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re very welcome, Donna. I think I understand his perspective and see how he is trying to tackle the issue, but to me, it was at a superficial level. It’s kind of telling people how to deal with those on the right and on the left of the spectrum, but that was it. Don’t get me wrong, it’s very useful advice for our current environment, but I’m not sure that was what I was looking for.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I struggle to fathom reasons why or how there can be such a divide. I see it in my large extended family who were all raised in similar religions and in the same county in the same state. Maybe the social psychological perspective was what I was looking for as I was a psychotherapist most of my career. I understand you were looking for something deeper or different. Will you say a little bit more what you were hoping for or what you’d like to know. I would like to understand. Thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Putting religion aside for a second, I think that I’m currently aligned with the Stoic philosophy, but I’m trying to understand human ethics. Like I mentioned in another comment, I believe that we need to be in agreement with nature: (1) wisely using natural resources and what this planet provides, and (2) following the societal norms agreed upon by the majority of people. I’m working and thinking through that right now. How do we get there?

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    1. Thank you, Mary. I was almost 100% non-fiction (I’m a fan of Isabel Allende, so that was where I focused my fiction reading) because I’m interested in learning everything I can on certain subjects, so I look for books that can help me in that journey. But I’m adding more fiction to my reading habits to bring some balance.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Your intellectual thirst is great and, according to all reports, will help you have a wonderful, fulfilling retirement. Your mind is popping! There really is some great historical fiction out there. For example, “The Director” by Daniel Kehlmann truly enhanced my understanding of life under the Nazis for creatives. Looking forward to your fiction reviews!

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

    1. Thank you very much. I’m also trying to understand what “good” means from a philosophical point of view. From my limited knowledge, what I’m finding is that the “good” consists of things in agreement with nature, from two perspectives: (1) wisely using natural resources and what this planet provides, and (2) following the societal norms agreed upon by the majority of people. I’m still working through what that means exactly, but I figure I’d add that to the conversation.

      Like

      Reply

  9. Thanks for all of this thoughtfulness, Edward. It’s been so long since I peeked at this book that I’d forgotten how much I appreciated Haidt’s straightforward words about confirmation bias and how we can delude ourselves into faulty thinking. I loved that you included this part as one of your highlights:
    “Confirmation bias, the tendency to seek out and interpret new evidence in ways that confirm what you already think.”
    I see that behavior, that personality flaw, in play so often right now. Used to fuel needless arguments and conflict.
    Many thanks, my friend! 💝

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You’re so welcome, my friend. He made some good points about why people behave the way they do, and confirmation bias is driving some of that. I’m sure you have experienced this in your professional life as you counsel students and other professionals. OMG—circular arguments and endless debates that don’t go anywhere are the worst!

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. You’re welcome, Rosaliene. With all the political divide and tribalism, it’s definitely good to discuss this subject in an open and respectful manner. We need to find our way back to sensible discourse.

      Like

      Reply

  11. As always, I enjoy reading your book reviews but this book review I must say you’re a better man than me fore I could not have read this book. I am grateful that you took the time to not only read the book but to give a clever book review.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  12. What a thoughtful and balanced review. I especially appreciated how you engaged with Haidt’s ideas critically yet fairly, remaining open to perspectives that challenged your own assumptions. Your reflections on the tension between reason, intuition, psychology, and philosophy add a depth that goes beyond a simple book review.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

Leave a comment