I don’t usually post these here but I really liked this book. You should read it!
This book deals with moral psychology, trying to describe the peculiar ways in which we make moral judgements, why different people tend to have different moralities, and applying it to explain our politics (particularly US politics). The author Jonathan Haidt is a professor so his writing is nuanced and analytical, and he cites tons of studies to back up his points. The organization of the book is also excellent- section headings are logically ordered, and he always gives a summary at the end of each chapter to help you remember his main points. It does get a bit into the weeds of research sometimes, but the language not terribly technical and I think most of the topics will be completely attainable since it deals with the intuitions that all of us experience in our lives.
There are 3 main sections with 3 main points in the book:
- Humans make moral judgements intuitionally, then use post hoc reasoning to justify our judgement instead of the other way around.
- There are (at least) 6 broad “intuitions” that people use to make moral judgements, and people who fall into liberal, conservative, or libertarian camps tend to have similar “profiles” of which intuitions they care about most.
- Humans are selfish most of the time, but sometimes we can transcend that selfishness through group belonging and cooperation.
My biggest gripe about the book is probably that I would have liked to hear a few more normative suggestions for what we should all do with the conclusions of this research. The book is mostly descriptive- it’s about how we all tend to think and act, and not about how we ought to think and act. It’s a good thing to separate the descriptive from prescriptive in research, but when dealing with topics like morality it’s impossible not to talk in moral, normative language, which Haidt does from time to time in the book. For example, you can tell that Haidt thinks that we all ought to think a bit more before we act, and not just act on our intuitions. He also thinks that all 6 moral intuitions are valid and important to society, and that we ought to try and be more cooperative instead of selfish.
The second of those might be controversial (because it is trying to psychologize people’s political beliefs which will make people mad), but the first (that we should think before we act) and the third (that we should try and be less selfish) are generally agreed upon (right?). So I would have liked to hear, for example, what the role of education should be in helping people challenge their own intuitions.
I would have especially liked to hear more about how we can as a society become less selfish and more neighborly (the 3rd main point of the book). Haidt’s general point here is that people tend to give up their selfishness in service of a group that they belong to and care about, and so having institutions of community (like churches, interest clubs, sports fandom groups, etc.) are essential to a society. These sound very similar to the suggestions made by Yuval Levin in The Fractured Republic: Renewing America’s Social Contract in the Age of Individualism. Haidt specifically talks about religion as being especially effective in binding people together, giving a shared sense of identity and mutual trust, because they make explicit what all such communities do: they sacralize something. The sacred then becomes the symbols of shared values, which then codifies into cultural laws that bind people together (using language from Philip Rieff, Triumph of the Therapeutic).
The question here is, if we must make something sacred in order to create the communities that we want, then isn’t it of extremely high importance what it is that we make sacred? In addition to churches, clubs, interest groups, etc., Haidt also mentions events like concerts, raves, and shared drug experiences from which people have reported experiences of groupishness and belonging that transcended their own individuality and selfishness. Yet surely there is something to be said about which of these methods is superior, both in the sense of which are more effective, and also in the sense of which community’s beliefs and experiences actually accord with reality? Haidt praises the usefulness of religion in creating cooperative communities, but as an atheist also says that their sacred beliefs are illusions- effective illusions, but illusions nonetheless. What then are we to do? Is there a way people in a secular society can come together around sacred beliefs in order to form a more perfect union? Who is to decide what those beliefs are? If there is such a system that can work, I don’t think it is mentioned in this book.
Nevertheless, I think this book is really good, and that you should probably read it. It was useful and enjoyable for me to read, and I think it has challenged me and added a new perspective into how I think about the world and our society. Read it!
View all my reviews
themonthswillpass liked this runningtohim liked this
lawrenceyong liked this
lifevindicated-blog liked this
mrsaturn101 posted this