Sign in with Facebook
Jay Kamaladasa'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
I had great expectations for this book after watching the author give an introduction in the Colbert report. However, the book didn't hold up to it's name. These are some of grudges I have against this book:
1.) The author doesn't tackle conservative vs. progressive morals. He tackles left wing vs. right wing morals.
This is a typical blunder made by the average American. And I would've overlooked it, as the book is geared towards an American audience. But the author is a professor in moral psychology; he should've known better.
To illustrate what I mean; in America, conservatives fight for free markets, the freedom to bare arms, and less government intervention. However in countries that have not embraced capitalism as much, the liberals (or progressives) are the ones who fight for free markets, less government intervention and individualist ideals such as the right to bare arms and freedom of speech.
It would've made much more sense in a philosophical context if the argument was about progressives (who want change) and conservatives (who want the things the way they are). But then the narrative would be too simple: of course we don't live in a perfect world, so we have to change society and it's prejudices and beliefs. Then the real question is what do we do to bring about change? This of course is a difficult question, and I don't expect an answer from one single book. But it's sad to see the author moving away from this simple approach for the sake of being in the "middle ground"; which brings to the second point.
2.) The author tries too hard to stay on the "middle ground".
Have you ever witnessed fights where you absolutely know that one party is being unreasonable, and someone comes along and tries to be "fair" to both parties? Obviously the unreasonable party profits and the reasonable party loses because the negotiations were trying to be "fair" to both parties. It's a simple case of the "Anchoring effect."; whoever anchors the furthest from the truth, wins.
The author's six moral foundations is an excellent example for this. He defines Care, Liberty, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity as the six pillars of morality. In his haste to become neutral he assumes that these should be given equal weight. Really? Does he not know what Authority and Loyalty has done for us human history? Forget the mass genocides, and mass cult suicides, he should at least be aware of the classical psychology experiments like the Stanford Prison experiment, the Robber's cave experiment, and the Milgram experiment.. But no, the author gives the same value to Authority that he gives to Care.
This is not a simple side argument, this is his main thesis. He derives everything else he says in the book from this comparison. And obviously, as we say in the scientific community; garbage in, garbage out.
3.) The author's epiphany comes from his visit to India, where he associated conservatism with likeable people. He probably didn't stay long enough to see the dark side of the culture.
Unlike the author, I was born in the East. And I can tell you first hand that the morals which seem to paint a pretty picture of eastern culture, is just a pretty picture - nothing more, nothing less. Hiding behind that pretty picture is a culture of corruption, a culture where shame and guilt are the driving forces of society and a culture where an individual is judged by his/her group (race, creed, school, hometown etc). A culture where you must bow down to someone just because they are older than you, or are in a higher paygrade than you.
I understand there are problems with the current individualist culture in the West. But believe me, the East is not the solution. Far from it, it's a backward step in human progression. The solutions to the problems of the West should come from the minds that have already evolved passed the hive-mind.
Having said all that, the book is a good read. It's written beautifully with a style commonly found in most best selling non-fiction books these days. It get's you thinking, even if it's in the wrong direction. And it does point towards why there's a rift between left-wing and right-wing American political groups. I agree with the author that a lot of left-wing supporters just go with the tide and need to realize where the right-wing groups are coming from. What I don't agree is placing the philosophical ideal of conservatism on the same ground as the philosophical ideal of progressivism.
1.) The author doesn't tackle conservative vs. progressive morals. He tackles left wing vs. right wing morals.
This is a typical blunder made by the average American. And I would've overlooked it, as the book is geared towards an American audience. But the author is a professor in moral psychology; he should've known better.
To illustrate what I mean; in America, conservatives fight for free markets, the freedom to bare arms, and less government intervention. However in countries that have not embraced capitalism as much, the liberals (or progressives) are the ones who fight for free markets, less government intervention and individualist ideals such as the right to bare arms and freedom of speech.
It would've made much more sense in a philosophical context if the argument was about progressives (who want change) and conservatives (who want the things the way they are). But then the narrative would be too simple: of course we don't live in a perfect world, so we have to change society and it's prejudices and beliefs. Then the real question is what do we do to bring about change? This of course is a difficult question, and I don't expect an answer from one single book. But it's sad to see the author moving away from this simple approach for the sake of being in the "middle ground"; which brings to the second point.
2.) The author tries too hard to stay on the "middle ground".
Have you ever witnessed fights where you absolutely know that one party is being unreasonable, and someone comes along and tries to be "fair" to both parties? Obviously the unreasonable party profits and the reasonable party loses because the negotiations were trying to be "fair" to both parties. It's a simple case of the "Anchoring effect."; whoever anchors the furthest from the truth, wins.
The author's six moral foundations is an excellent example for this. He defines Care, Liberty, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity as the six pillars of morality. In his haste to become neutral he assumes that these should be given equal weight. Really? Does he not know what Authority and Loyalty has done for us human history? Forget the mass genocides, and mass cult suicides, he should at least be aware of the classical psychology experiments like the Stanford Prison experiment, the Robber's cave experiment, and the Milgram experiment.. But no, the author gives the same value to Authority that he gives to Care.
This is not a simple side argument, this is his main thesis. He derives everything else he says in the book from this comparison. And obviously, as we say in the scientific community; garbage in, garbage out.
3.) The author's epiphany comes from his visit to India, where he associated conservatism with likeable people. He probably didn't stay long enough to see the dark side of the culture.
Unlike the author, I was born in the East. And I can tell you first hand that the morals which seem to paint a pretty picture of eastern culture, is just a pretty picture - nothing more, nothing less. Hiding behind that pretty picture is a culture of corruption, a culture where shame and guilt are the driving forces of society and a culture where an individual is judged by his/her group (race, creed, school, hometown etc). A culture where you must bow down to someone just because they are older than you, or are in a higher paygrade than you.
I understand there are problems with the current individualist culture in the West. But believe me, the East is not the solution. Far from it, it's a backward step in human progression. The solutions to the problems of the West should come from the minds that have already evolved passed the hive-mind.
Having said all that, the book is a good read. It's written beautifully with a style commonly found in most best selling non-fiction books these days. It get's you thinking, even if it's in the wrong direction. And it does point towards why there's a rift between left-wing and right-wing American political groups. I agree with the author that a lot of left-wing supporters just go with the tide and need to realize where the right-wing groups are coming from. What I don't agree is placing the philosophical ideal of conservatism on the same ground as the philosophical ideal of progressivism.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Righteous Mind.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
April 18, 2013
– Shelved
April 18, 2013
– Shelved as:
nonfiction
April 18, 2013
–
Finished Reading
Comments (showing 1-3 of 3) (3 new)
date
newest »
newest »
What you said in this paragraph (I've copied it below.) is absolutely spot on. I come from a similar background as you, and agree with your assessment that Haidt romanticizes the "east,""Unlike the author, I was born in the East. And I can tell you first hand that the morals which seem to paint a pretty picture of eastern culture, is just a pretty picture - nothing more, nothing less. Hiding behind that pretty picture is a culture of corruption, a culture where shame and guilt are the driving forces of society and a culture where an individual is judged by his/her group (race, creed, school, hometown etc). A culture where you must bow down to someone just because they are older than you, or are in a higher paygrade than you.
I understand there are problems with the current individualist culture in the West. But believe me, the East is not the solution. Far from it, it's a backward step in human progression. The solutions to the problems of the West should come from the minds that have already evolved passed the hive-mind. "
You lost me when you equated conservatism with the "hive-mind". Conservatism is anything but. On the contrary, conservatism aspires to build legitimate hierarchy driven by individuality and excellence. The truly best above the rest. You just have to have authentic filters in place to not allow charlatans and opportunists to claim the "best" spots. It is the modern progressive man who is permanently in "hive-mind" mode, not the spiritual conservative romantic who prizes individuality and hierarchy. And no, being covered in tatoos or obsessively exploring your sexuality doesn't qualify one as "out-of-the-hive". It merely qualifies one as a low-life moron. Now if your Eastern people do hive-mind and then call that "conservatism", then they are doing it all wrong. That's not being "conservative" - that's just being a culture of generally low caliber individuals. Whatever your original Eastern nightmares may be (I hear you, I am Eastern-ish too), the solution is not switching to the disastrous human decay of contemporary liberal western societies. It is going back to nature-driven standards of Truth, Good and Beauty - which is very much conservative, in and of itself.
"So, you read something that challenged your narrow moral framework, your cognitive dissonance kicked in, and in your own words "you lost it," which kind of proves the point Haidt makes about the lack of empathy liberals have for anybody who doesn't bow down and show due deference to their mawkish compassion. You don't seem to even understand Haidt's moral modes. Liberals hate authority in terms of traditional hierarchy. They value government until it treads on their concept of equality and harm aversion. Conservatives value non intrusive governance, especially upon personal liberty, but value traditional hierarchies such as generational hierarchies, such as parents, but also religious and in times of stress leaders. Authority does not have to mean government in Haidt's moral matrix. Government is better covered by Liberty. I think he makes that clear, but for some reason you've not understood that, suggesting to me that your fanatical liberal elephant was so "triggered" (to use that liberal term) that you went straight into combat mode and are now thrashing around trying to denigrate a very interesting book because it upset you're bloated sense of compassion. Of course, I'm only enraging the situation by disagreeing with your obnoxious liberal elephant and will only make it more combative. But then I disagree with Haidt on one major point: the time for compromise is alas over... His book is too late... The Morality Wars will soon start in earnest"
I copied the entire thing, but the most important part is probably the middle, where the comment explains the difference between what you believe authority is and what "conservatives" believe authority is...sort of what when people generalize an entire ideal because of the actions of a few (oh wait, where did we see that again? Perhaps the entirety of American politics??)