Enhanced descriptions from Syndetics:

Why can it sometimes feel as though half the population is living in a different moral universe from you? Why do ideas such as 'fairness' and 'freedom' mean such different things to different people? Why is it so easy to see the flaws in others' arguments, and less in our own?

Jonathan Haidt, one of the world's most influential psychologists, reveals that the reason we find it so hard to get along is because our minds are designed to be moral. Not only that, we are hardwired to be moralistic, judgemental and self-righteous too. Our intrinsic morality enabled us to form communities and create civilization, and it is the key to understanding everybody. It explains why some of us are liberal, others conservative. It is often the difference between war and peace. It is also why we are the only species that will kill for an ideal. Drawing on moral psychology, ancient philosophy, modern politics, poetry, advertising and the semantics of bumper stickers, Haidt's incredibly wise and enjoyable book examines how morality evolves; why we are predisposed to believe certain things; how our surroundings can affect our morality; and how moral values are not just about justice and fairness - for some people authority, sanctity or loyalty are more important.

Morality binds and blinds, but with new evidence from his own empirical research, Haidt proves it is possible to liberate us from the disputes that divide good people and cooperate with those whose morals differ from our own. After all, they might just have something to say.

Excerpt provided by Syndetics

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion By Jonathan Haidt Penguin Books, Limited ISBN: 9781846141812 Introduction "Can we all get along?" That appeal was made famous on May 1, 1992, by Rodney King, a black man who had been beaten nearly to death by four Los Angeles police officers a year earlier. The entire nation had seen a videotape of the beating, so when a jury failed to convict the officers, their acquittal triggered widespread outrage and six days of rioting in Los Angeles. Fifty-three people were killed and more than seven thousand buildings were torched. Much of the mayhem was carried live; news cameras tracked the action from helicopters circling overhead. After a particularly horrific act of violence against a white truck driver, King was moved to make his appeal for peace. King's appeal is now so overused that it has become cultural kitsch, a catchphrase1 more often said for laughs than as a serious plea for mutual understanding. I therefore hesitated to use King's words as the opening line of this book, but I decided to go ahead, for two reasons. The first is because most Americans nowadays are asking King's question not about race relations but about political relations and the collapse of cooperation across party lines. Many Americans feel as though the nightly news from Washington is being sent to us from helicopters circling over the city, delivering dispatches from the war zone. The second reason I decided to open this book with an overused phrase is because King followed it up with something lovely, something rarely quoted. As he stumbled through his television interview, fighting back tears and often repeating himself, he found these words: "Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we're all stuck here for a while. Let's try to work it out." This book is about why it's so hard for us to get along. We are indeed all stuck here for a while, so let's at least do what we can to understand why we are so easily divided into hostile groups, each one certain of its righteousness. ### People who devote their lives to studying something often come to believe that the object of their fascination is the key to understanding everything. Books have been published in recent years on the transformative role in human history played by cooking, mothering, war . . . even salt. This is one of those books. I study moral psychology, and I'm going to make the case that morality is the extraordinary human capacity that made civilization possible. I don't mean to imply that cooking, mothering, war, and salt were not also necessary, but in this book I'm going to take you on a tour of human nature and history from the perspective of moral psychology. By the end of the tour, I hope to have given you a new way to think about two of the most important, vexing, and divisive topics in human life: politics and religion. Etiquette books tell us not to discuss these topics in polite company, but I say go ahead. Politics and religion are both expressions of our underlying moral psychology, and an understanding of that psychology can help to bring people together. My goal in this book is to drain some of the heat, anger, and divisiveness out of these topics and replace them with awe, wonder, and curiosity. We are downright lucky that we evolved this complex moral psychology that allowed our species to burst out of the forests and savannas and into the delights, comforts, and extraordinary peacefulness of modern societies in just a few thousand years. My hope is that this book will make conversations about morality, politics, and religion more common, more civil, and more fun, even in mixed company. My hope is that it will help us to get along. BORN TO BE RIGHTEOUS I could have titled this book The Moral Mind to convey the sense that the human mind is designed to "do" morality, just as it's designed to do language, sexuality, music, and many other things described in popular books reporting the latest scientific findings. 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. The word righteous comes from the old Norse word rettviss and the old English word rihtwis , both of which mean "just, upright, virtuous." This meaning has been carried into the modern English words righteous and righteousness , although nowadays those words have strong religious connotations because they are usually used to translate the Hebrew word tzedek. Tzedek is a common word in the Hebrew Bible, often used to describe people who act in accordance with God's wishes, but it is also an attribute of God and of God's judgment of people (which is often harsh but always thought to be just). The linkage of righteousness and judgmentalism is captured in some modern definitions of righteous , such as "arising from an outraged sense of justice, morality, or fair play." The link also appears in the term self- righteous , which means "convinced of one's own righteousness, especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others; narrowly moralistic and intolerant." I want to show you that an obsession with righteousness (leading inevitably to self- righteousness) is the normal human condition. It is a feature of our evolutionary design, not a bug or error that crept into minds that would otherwise be objective and rational. Our righteous minds made it possible for human beings--but no other animals--to produce large cooperative groups, tribes, and nations without the glue of kinship. But at the same time, our righteous minds guarantee that our cooperative groups will always be cursed by moralistic strife. Some degree of conflict among groups may even be necessary for the health and development of any society. When I was a teenager I wished for world peace, but now I yearn for a world in which competing ideologies are kept in balance, systems of accountability keep us all from getting away with too much, and fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means. Not a very romantic wish, but one that we might actually achieve. WHAT LIES AHEAD This book has three parts, which you can think of as three separate books--except that each one depends on the one before it. Each part presents one major principle of moral psychology. Part I is about the first principle: Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. Moral intuitions arise automatically and almost instantaneously, long before moral reasoning has a chance to get started, and those first intuitions tend to drive our later reasoning. If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you'll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you. But if you think about moral reasoning as a skill we humans evolved to further our social agendas--to justify our own actions and to defend the teams we belong to--then things will make a lot more sense. Keep your eye on the intuitions, and don't take people's moral arguments at face value. They're mostly post hoc constructions made up on the fly, crafted to advance one or more strategic objectives. The central metaphor of these four chapters is that the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider's job is to serve the elephant. The rider is our conscious reasoning--the stream of words and images of which we are fully aware. The elephant is the other 99 percent of mental processes--the ones that occur outside of awareness but that actually govern most of our behavior. I developed this metaphor in my last book, The Happiness Hypothesis , where I described how the rider and elephant work together, sometimes poorly, as we stumble through life in search of meaning and connection. In this book I'll use the metaphor to solve puzzles such as why it seems like everyone (else) is a hypocrite and why political partisans are so willing to believe outrageous lies and conspiracy theories. I'll also use the metaphor to show you how you can better persuade people who seem unresponsive to reason. Part II is about the second principle of moral psychology, which is that there's more to morality than harm and fairness . The central metaphor of these four chapters is that the righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors . Secular Western moralities are like cuisines that try to activate just one or two of these receptors--either concerns about harm and suffering, or concerns about fairness and injustice. But people have so many other powerful moral intuitions, such as those related to liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. I'll explain where these six taste receptors come from, how they form the basis of the world's many moral cuisines, and why politicians on the right have a built- in advantage when it comes to cooking meals that voters like. Part III is about the third principle: Morality binds and blinds . The central metaphor of these four chapters is that human beings are 90 percent chimp and percent bee . Human nature was produced by natural selection working at two levels simultaneously. Individuals compete with individuals within every group, and we are the descendants of primates who excelled at that competition. This gives us the ugly side of our nature, the one that is usually featured in books about our evolutionary origins. We are indeed selfish hypocrites so skilled at putting on a show of virtue that we fool even ourselves. But human nature was also shaped as groups competed with other groups. As Darwin said long ago, the most cohesive and cooperative groups generally beat the groups of selfish individualists. Darwin's ideas about group selection fell out of favor in the 1960s, but recent discoveries are putting his ideas back into play, and the implications are profound. We're not always selfish hypocrites. We also have the ability, under special circumstances, to shut down our petty selves and become like cells in a larger body, or like bees in a hive, working for the good of the group. These experiences are often among the most cherished of our lives, although our hivishness can blind us to other moral concerns. Our bee-like nature facilitates altruism, heroism, war, and genocide. Once you see our righteous minds as primate minds with a hivish overlay, you get a whole new perspective on morality, politics, and religion. I'll show that our "higher nature" allows us to be profoundly altruistic, but that altruism is mostly aimed at members of our own groups. I'll show that religion is (probably) an evolutionary adaptation for binding groups together and helping them to create communities with a shared morality. It is not a virus or a parasite, as some scientists (the "New Atheists") have argued in recent years. And I'll use this perspective to explain why some people are conservative, others are liberal (or progressive), and still others become libertarians. People bind themselves into political teams that share moral narratives. Once they accept a particular narrative, they become blind to alternative moral worlds. (A note on terminology: In the United States, the word liberal refers to progressive or left- wing politics, and I will use the word in this sense. But in Europe and elsewhere, the word liberal is truer to its original meaning--valuing liberty above all else, including in economic activities. When Europeans use the word liberal, they often mean something more like the American term libertarian, which cannot be placed easily on the left- right spectrum. Readers from outside the United States may want to swap in the words progressive or left- wing whenever I say liberal .) In the coming chapters I'll draw on the latest research in neuroscience, genetics, social psychology, and evolutionary modeling, but the take- home message of the book is ancient. It is the realization that we are all self- righteous hypocrites: Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? . . . You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor's eye. (Matthew 7:3--5) Enlightenment (or wisdom, if you prefer) requires us all to take the logs out of our own eyes and then escape from our ceaseless, petty, and divisive moralism. As the eighth- century Chinese Zen master Sen-ts'an wrote: The Perfect Way is only difficult for those who pick and choose; Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear. Make a hairbreadth difference, and Heaven and Earth are set apart; If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. I'm not saying we should live our lives like Sen-ts'an. In fact, I believe that a world without moralism, gossip, and judgment would quickly decay into chaos. But if we want to understand ourselves, our divisions, our limits, and our potentials, we need to step back, drop the moralism, apply some moral psychology, and analyze the game we're all playing. . Let us now examine the psychology of this struggle between "for" and "against." It is a struggle that plays out in each of our righteous minds, and among all of our righteous groups. Excerpted from The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher. Excerpted from The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.

Reviews provided by Syndetics

Library Journal Review

Haidt (psychology, Univ. of Virginia; The Happiness Hypothesis) is a social psychologist who has extensively researched and written about the psychology of morals (see www.yourmorals.org). The breadth of interdisciplinary research brought to bear on his explanation of why humans can be so convinced they are "right" is truly impressive; legal and business ethics, politics, biology, philosophy, sociology, and cognitive psychology all contribute evidence to his assertion that "morals bind and blind." The moral matrixces that have coevolved in human culture, often through religions, allow people to live together but can also make it difficult for them to understand one another when they construct or ascribe to matrices using different components. Haidt explains how liberals, libertarians, and conservatives get it right and where they go wrong. In spite of a daunting 52 pages of notes and 28 pages of references, the tone here is conversational, nonjudgmental, and accessible to thoughtful readers from any political or religious position. Verdict Strongly recommended for anyone who has ever despaired of finding common ground for discussion with people of differing religious or political beliefs. Readers will come away with greater self-awareness, increased appreciation for the potential values of others' viewpoints, and-if they want-strategies for reaching across the divide.-Paula McMillen, formerly with Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas (c) Copyright 2012. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.

Publishers Weekly Review

Amid America's tense culture wars, Haidt (The Happiness Hypothesis), a psychology professor at the University of Virginia, has produced this thought-provoking investigation into the innate morality of the human mind. Dismissing the notion that the human mind is fundamentally rational, Haidt briskly guides the reader through decades of psychology research in order to demonstrate that emotion and intuition determine our judgments, while reasoning is created only later to justify these judgments (a la Hume). From there, Haidt dispels the classic notion that morality is based upon concepts of harm or fairness and outlines the variety of moral categories before entering a discussion of how our "righteous minds" "Bind and Blind" us in politics, religion, and nationalism. But Haidt is at his best when using his comprehensive knowledge of moral psychology to explain both sides of American politics with an admirable evenhandedness and sympathy. In his two most insightful chapters, Haidt explains why conservatives have a wider moral foundation and thus, an inherent advantage in politics, and later outlines the necessities of both liberal and conservative moral systems, arguing that the two provide necessary counterbalances to one another. Blending lucid explanations of landmark studies in psychology and sociology with light personal anecdotes, Haidt has produced an imminently readable book about the complexities of moral psychology and the human fixation with righteousness. Illus. (Mar.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.

CHOICE Review

In this important follow-up to his The Happiness Hypothesis (2005), Haidt (psychology, Univ. of Virginia) elaborates on his argument that morality comes more from intuition than from reasoning--his metaphor is that reason is like a rider trying to guide an elephant. He explores the foundations of moral insights empirically. Haidt posits that the Enlightenment tradition embraced by the academy and most political liberals emphasizes preventing harm and unfairness, but that most people, the Earth over, also have intuitions for liberty, authority, loyalty, and sanctity--intuitions that political conservatives are more likely to emphasize. Moreover, whereas humans have evolved to be largely selfish (as chimps are), they have the capacity to be communal (as bees are)--and this has led to the great achievements of civilized human life. But communal attachments mean one feels righteous when defending one's group in conflicts with other groups. This is why politics tend to polarize. And when groups polarize, Haidt contends, conservatives have an advantage because they are more likely to appeal to all six foundations of moral intuitions. This empirical study is a rich, intriguing contribution to positive psychology. Summing Up: Recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty; general readers. B. Weston Centre College

Booklist Review

*Starred Review* What would we think of a family that responded to the accidental death of their pet dog by cooking and eating it? By assessing diverse responses to questions such as this one, Haidt illuminates the often bewildering mysteries of human morality. Evidence from anthropology and evolutionary psychology reveals that most moral reasoning amounts to merely post hoc rationalizations of emotional intuitions. Readers learn how these intuitions develop into profoundly different moral orientations defined by divergent attitudes toward six foundational values: care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. Laying these six values out in liberal, conservative, and libertarian matrices, Haidt examines the dynamics of political conflicts and the blinding zealotry of the ideological combatants. Modern research suggests that such zealotry reflects our species' genetically primed inclination to hive-like group loyalty. And though the New Atheists see only evil and oppression in religious reinforcements to such loyalty, Haidt interprets the emergence of religion as essential to human moral formation. But then atheists and believers, liberals and conservatives will all find some of their cherished tenets in jeopardy in these pages. And will all find reason to heed Haidt's concluding plea for a renewed civility born of human connections that transcend ideological disagreements. A much-needed voice of moral sanity.--Christensen, Bryce Copyright 2010 Booklist

Kirkus Book Review

A well-informed tour of contemporary moral psychology. Haidt (Psychology/Univ. of Virginia; The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom, 2005, etc.) lays out a rich landscape of morality, presenting a cross-cultural, evolutionarily sensible scenario wherein a moral universe can be shaped from six moral foundations: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation and liberty/oppression. Haidt examines, via a wide array of theories, research and experimentation, how various subsetsfor instance, the WEIRD (Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic) groupemphasize one or more of the foundations with respect to group traditions and evolutionary progress. He explains how he has arrived at an intuitionist's rather than a rationalist's stance regarding the elemental governing of our moral behaviora framework with us at birth, though not deterministichow our reasoning comes later to justify our social agenda and how moral intuitions such as loyalty, authority and sanctity gather such subjective importance and potential evolutionary value. He arrives at a broad definition of moral systems as "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." Haidt finds within Western democracies an ethnic and moral diversity that is best served by utilitarianism, producing the greatest total good, and that happiness comes from "getting the right relationships between yourself and others, yourself and your work, and yourself and something larger than yourself." A cogent rendering of a moral universe of fertile complexity and latent flexibility.]] Copyright Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.

Author notes provided by Syndetics

Authors Bio, not available