Customer Reviews for

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Average Rating 4.5
( 33 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(19)

4 Star

(8)

3 Star

(4)

2 Star

(2)

1 Star

(0)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

11 out of 14 people found this review helpful.

A Brief Summary

The old saying goes that we are never to discuss religion or politics in polite company. These topics are singled out of course because they tend to be the two that people are most passionate about, and which therefore have the greatest potential to cause enmity and str...
The old saying goes that we are never to discuss religion or politics in polite company. These topics are singled out of course because they tend to be the two that people are most passionate about, and which therefore have the greatest potential to cause enmity and strife. According to the psychologist Jonathan Haidt, the fact that we disagree over politics and religion is not necessarily such a bad thing. For him, though, the current wrangling between political and religious (and non-religious) factions has gotten rather out of hand, as it has recently reached such a pitch in the West (and particularly in America where Haidt resides) as to be threatening the very fabric of our nations. Now, according to Haidt, at least some of the enmity and strife between people of different political and religious stripes is caused by a failure to understand precisely where these beliefs ultimately come from--as well as a failure to understand how one's opponents understand their own beliefs. In an effort to remedy this situation, and to bring a degree of civility back into the ongoing debate, Haidt sets out to supply just these understandings in his new book `The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion'. According to Haidt, understanding political and religious beliefs begins with an understanding of the human moral sense as it was laid down by evolution over the past several million years. For Haidt, the moral sense actually consists of (at least) six moral modules, each of which evolved to answer a specific challenge that our ancestors faced in the environment in which our species evolved. While all of us come prewired with the six moral modules, each of them stands to be either amplified or quieted as well as somewhat modified by a host of internal and external factors. The internal factors include our personality and its development, while the external factors include the environment in which we are raised (including our cultural milieu), and the particular experiences that we have--the latter of which help to shape, among other things, our view of human nature, which itself influences our view of what a good society consists in. It is these internal and external factors--which differ for all of us--that explain the plurality of moral and political views and ideologies across cultures, as well as within the same culture across individuals. In addition to the six moral modules, Haidt maintains that human beings have also evolved an overlay of group-oriented sentiment sometime in the past 140,000 years, and as recently as in the past 10,000 years. This `groupishness', Haidt claims, not only explains some of our moral and political sentiments, but also helps explain our attraction to religion, and other group-oriented pursuits. While our groupishness is particularly adept at binding us to the organizations of which we are a part, it also sets us against those who are a part of opposing groups, and makes it especially difficult for us to appreciate their point of view. The end result is that people not only have opposing viewpoints when it comes to morality, politics and religion, but they are often even unable to appreciate (or truly understand) the viewpoints of their rivals. For a full summary of the book visit the website newbooksinbrief dot wordpress dot com, and click on article #10; the information in the article will also be available in a condensed version as a podcast shortly thereafter.

posted by popscipopulizer on April 8, 2012

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

22 out of 37 people found this review helpful.

Nice try. I read this book also hoping to understand the other

Nice try. I read this book also hoping to understand the other side. Conservative republicans just seem so awfull, so hateful, selfish and vindictive, shortsighted and dense. I read this book looking for a more balanced and nuanced way of viewing evil and vile republ...
Nice try. I read this book also hoping to understand the other side. Conservative republicans just seem so awfull, so hateful, selfish and vindictive, shortsighted and dense. I read this book looking for a more balanced and nuanced way of viewing evil and vile republicans especially since they so outnumber me here in Texas.
This book didn't help. Haidt's argument is that conservatives have a broader moral foundation and consider more things than liberals such as God and Country. Is this not the same old assumption those without traditional orthodox beliefs have lesser spritual lives and essentially less morals? Sure, we are less socially cohessive in terms of participating in mega rallies, but, how is that a moral virtue?
How can conservatives love their country, especially anything military, and hate government so much? How is it that all this moral indignation about the debt seem not to exist when their party was in power? How can they hate all regulation while so determined to control others sexual behavior? The litany of hipocracy defies reason, and no, it does not exist on both sides. Reason and intelligence operates on the exact same scale.
Another overworn trope in this book is when the author describes the competiting narratives that the two parties. Republicans are at war to protect thier very way of life, shield their children from liberals who want to turn their children gay, descecrate thier statues of Jesus and give ayll thier hard earned money to caddilac driving welfare queens. That part is obviously true, but I object to the charatization of liberals as bleeding heart fairness obsessed redistributionists. It is not that we want to give money to losers any more than anyone else. I would be happy to be just as jingoistic and sterotype affirming as anyone. It's just that we are not as irrational as the unreflective xenophobic self-maximizers. It is simply that liberals are more rational. It is just that liberals are simply more intelligent. We have the same impusles, the same urge to prefer our family and our clan over others, it's just that we are more capable to take that extra step back and see things from a slightly less ignorant perspective.
There is no dispute that liberalism is a direct if unfortunate result of higher education and intelligence. There is a one to one correlation between academic achivement and liberal politics. The very words liberal and conservative essentially define this distinction.
Its' not that any one would not perfer to be a Bible thumping NRA good ole boy socially accepted member of the club. All should agree rock solid conservatives are essentially happier people. Who would not prefer to know all the answers to life's questions with utter certainy and live in a community where all agree with your views? I envy these people. Unfortunatley I'm too intelligent to be one of them.

posted by the_cooler on June 1, 2012

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 33 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 2
  • Posted June 1, 2012

    Nice try. I read this book also hoping to understand the other

    Nice try. I read this book also hoping to understand the other side. Conservative republicans just seem so awfull, so hateful, selfish and vindictive, shortsighted and dense. I read this book looking for a more balanced and nuanced way of viewing evil and vile republicans especially since they so outnumber me here in Texas.
    This book didn't help. Haidt's argument is that conservatives have a broader moral foundation and consider more things than liberals such as God and Country. Is this not the same old assumption those without traditional orthodox beliefs have lesser spritual lives and essentially less morals? Sure, we are less socially cohessive in terms of participating in mega rallies, but, how is that a moral virtue?
    How can conservatives love their country, especially anything military, and hate government so much? How is it that all this moral indignation about the debt seem not to exist when their party was in power? How can they hate all regulation while so determined to control others sexual behavior? The litany of hipocracy defies reason, and no, it does not exist on both sides. Reason and intelligence operates on the exact same scale.
    Another overworn trope in this book is when the author describes the competiting narratives that the two parties. Republicans are at war to protect thier very way of life, shield their children from liberals who want to turn their children gay, descecrate thier statues of Jesus and give ayll thier hard earned money to caddilac driving welfare queens. That part is obviously true, but I object to the charatization of liberals as bleeding heart fairness obsessed redistributionists. It is not that we want to give money to losers any more than anyone else. I would be happy to be just as jingoistic and sterotype affirming as anyone. It's just that we are not as irrational as the unreflective xenophobic self-maximizers. It is simply that liberals are more rational. It is just that liberals are simply more intelligent. We have the same impusles, the same urge to prefer our family and our clan over others, it's just that we are more capable to take that extra step back and see things from a slightly less ignorant perspective.
    There is no dispute that liberalism is a direct if unfortunate result of higher education and intelligence. There is a one to one correlation between academic achivement and liberal politics. The very words liberal and conservative essentially define this distinction.
    Its' not that any one would not perfer to be a Bible thumping NRA good ole boy socially accepted member of the club. All should agree rock solid conservatives are essentially happier people. Who would not prefer to know all the answers to life's questions with utter certainy and live in a community where all agree with your views? I envy these people. Unfortunatley I'm too intelligent to be one of them.

    22 out of 37 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted April 8, 2012

    A Brief Summary

    The old saying goes that we are never to discuss religion or politics in polite company. These topics are singled out of course because they tend to be the two that people are most passionate about, and which therefore have the greatest potential to cause enmity and strife. According to the psychologist Jonathan Haidt, the fact that we disagree over politics and religion is not necessarily such a bad thing. For him, though, the current wrangling between political and religious (and non-religious) factions has gotten rather out of hand, as it has recently reached such a pitch in the West (and particularly in America where Haidt resides) as to be threatening the very fabric of our nations. Now, according to Haidt, at least some of the enmity and strife between people of different political and religious stripes is caused by a failure to understand precisely where these beliefs ultimately come from--as well as a failure to understand how one's opponents understand their own beliefs. In an effort to remedy this situation, and to bring a degree of civility back into the ongoing debate, Haidt sets out to supply just these understandings in his new book `The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion'. According to Haidt, understanding political and religious beliefs begins with an understanding of the human moral sense as it was laid down by evolution over the past several million years. For Haidt, the moral sense actually consists of (at least) six moral modules, each of which evolved to answer a specific challenge that our ancestors faced in the environment in which our species evolved. While all of us come prewired with the six moral modules, each of them stands to be either amplified or quieted as well as somewhat modified by a host of internal and external factors. The internal factors include our personality and its development, while the external factors include the environment in which we are raised (including our cultural milieu), and the particular experiences that we have--the latter of which help to shape, among other things, our view of human nature, which itself influences our view of what a good society consists in. It is these internal and external factors--which differ for all of us--that explain the plurality of moral and political views and ideologies across cultures, as well as within the same culture across individuals. In addition to the six moral modules, Haidt maintains that human beings have also evolved an overlay of group-oriented sentiment sometime in the past 140,000 years, and as recently as in the past 10,000 years. This `groupishness', Haidt claims, not only explains some of our moral and political sentiments, but also helps explain our attraction to religion, and other group-oriented pursuits. While our groupishness is particularly adept at binding us to the organizations of which we are a part, it also sets us against those who are a part of opposing groups, and makes it especially difficult for us to appreciate their point of view. The end result is that people not only have opposing viewpoints when it comes to morality, politics and religion, but they are often even unable to appreciate (or truly understand) the viewpoints of their rivals. For a full summary of the book visit the website newbooksinbrief dot wordpress dot com, and click on article #10; the information in the article will also be available in a condensed version as a podcast shortly thereafter.

    11 out of 14 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted July 8, 2012

    The Righteous Mind asks the big question, ‘why do smart pe

    The Righteous Mind asks the big question, ‘why do smart people, seeing the same world, have such a different viewpoint on so many basic issues?’. The book begins to address this question by reporting the results of experiments in which persons are asked whether or not a set of hypothetical actions are immoral. The monitors of this webpage would probably not appreciate a description of these scenarios, but trust me, most would find them morally disgusting. The question is, why do we find them disgusting? This leads to the conclusion that morality is strongly based on cultural values embedded in our brains as a result of combined genetic and upbringing conditions. The author then asks, which of two basic types of morality, best serves society… a morality based on the individual, or a morality based on what’s best for society? Again, he brings up experimental evidence to show that people will flip-flop between these two extremes depending on the conditions they face. Finally, he presents more experimental evidence showing how political ‘conservatives’ have a broader range of values and moral concerns than do ‘liberals’, which in turn gives the conservatives an edge in politics and governing. What’s particularly interesting in these discussions is that the author himself admits to being an academic liberal although he admits that the experimental support many (but not all) of the traditional conservative positions.

    One particularly interesting discussion focused on the role of religion in the modern world, taking into account the voices of the ‘New Atheists’ (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens). Haidt presents the most intelligent rebuttal I’ve heard in response to these writers and their followers, pointing out that religion serves a much broader purpose than just explaining how the universe came into existence and providing a moral framework. It also provides an important social network that serves the communal needs of people and makes them feel part of something bigger than themself. However, in developing this rebuttal, Haight overlooks the working definition that the ‘New Atheists’ have of religion, which focuses on a supernatural being and the disparity between science and religion So in some sense, Haight’s rebuttals are a red herring to the main points of Harris et al.

    A second ‘red herring’ that is subtly introduced comes from an earlier explanation of human behavior and morality. On page 73 of The Righteous Mind’, the reader is reminded of Glaucon’s question to Socrates in Plato’s ‘The Republic’. In this dialogue, Glaucon asks Socrates to defend why it is better to be a just man with a bad reputation than an unjust man who is widely thought to be good. Haight, looking at the problem from a societal perspective, convincingly argues that it is better to be an unjust man who widely thought to be good. However, readers of ‘The Republic’ will recall that Socrates examined the problem from the perspective of the individual, concluding it’s better to be a just man with a bad reputation. Readers of The Righteous Mind will have fun answering Glaucon’s challenge to Socrates as they study the data presented in this book.

    Highly recommended, with lots of information on many ‘big picture’ topics, including morality, intuition vs. reason, individualism vs. group-think, conservative politics vs. liberal politics, and the basis for the extreme divisiveness seen in politics today.

    8 out of 10 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 7, 2012

    Highly recommend.

    One of best non-fiction books I have read (over 74 years). I am reading it for the second time to re-enforce the lessons offered. I learned of the book from the Moyers and Company TV program in February 2012 and down-loaded it as soon as it came out in early March. Very readable and presented in a well organized manner. Very well researched as shown by 100+ pages of reference notes.

    7 out of 8 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 16, 2012

    more from this reviewer

    If you think you can win an argument based on reasoned thought w

    If you think you can win an argument based on reasoned thought with someone of an opposing view think again! This book explains why good people on both sides are swayed mostly by their intuition based on 6 parameters the author delves into. Surprisingly, liberals are strong on 2 of the parameters (fairness and caring), but low on the others. Conservatives are balanced across all 6, most importantly loyalty, which allows them to rally around their cause or candidate after they've battled to get there; witness the recent GOP primary debates and the subsequent support of Romney. Liberals, on the other hand, will abandon their standard barrier if they don't feel he or she has supported their hot button cause sufficiently (gay marriage, legalized drugs, abortion etc. etc.).

    5 out of 5 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted April 1, 2012

    Stunningly provocative. No discussion of morality or considerat

    Stunningly provocative. No discussion of morality or consideration of why peoplle may hold contradictory views so tightly will be greatly limited if the participants have not read this book. A great addition of academic or non-academic discussions.

    5 out of 7 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 22, 2012

    Insightful!

    Only read this book of you are willing to entertain the thought that your political foes may not be the idiots you imagine and GASP! might have a point or two on their side. One of the most amazing books I have read this year.

    4 out of 4 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted August 15, 2012

    While the detail of this book would make any advanced college st

    While the detail of this book would make any advanced college student proud, it's the layman's explanation of how we've arrived at this point in our evolution that makes this book so insightful. Instead of liberals and conservatives talking at each other, a read of this book shows that the talking at each other part of our public discourse isn't bad manners; it's innate in our species. Best line of the book....you'll never see two chimps carrying a log together.

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted July 3, 2012

    A Must Read for Democrats and Republicans

    I found The Righteous Mind a challenging book to wade through - certainly not a book suitable for someone wanting a bit of leisurely reading. It reminded me of my days reading college text books steeped in research data. On the other hand, the author provides an interesting approach to question of why conservative and liberals find it so difficult to accept the political stance of the other side, which is the root cause of the toxic political climate that pervades Washington D.C. these days.

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 25, 2012

    Can't Recommend Highly Enough

    This book gives the best insight I've ever read into how people think about politics, religion, morality, and judgements of right or wrong.

    A must-read if you want to better understand people you disagree with -- OR if you want to have any chance of changing their views.

    3 out of 3 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted November 15, 2012

    more from this reviewer

    Why Moral Psychology Just Might Change the World Jonathan Haidt

    Why Moral Psychology Just Might Change the World

    Jonathan Haidt's book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion contains powerful insights that just might change the world. Haidt is a moral psychologist who gains insights into people's moral priorities by traveling to different countries and regions and asking intentionally disturbing questions in order to comprehend otherwise inexplicable matters--such as why in certain cultures it is considered horrible for a widow to eat fish.

    One of the biggest ideas presented in Haidt's book has to do with the way logic follows intuition in all humans, rather than the other way around. While people frequently assume we are being reasonable and behaving rationally, research studies show that humans actually lean in the direction of our emotional gut feelings from our subconscious first... and once we start leaning one way or another, our rational minds busy themselves to come up with explanations why our preferred particular direction makes so much sense. This wouldn't be much of a problem if we all tended to lean the same direction as one another, thus tending to generally agree, but it can present difficulties when individuals or groups of individuals all start emotionally leaning one way or another and then disagreeing regarding rational reasons for why that direction is better than others.

    Haidt outlines something called Moral Foundations Theory in his book, in such a way that shows how people from different cultures around the world identify to varying degrees with several basic foundations of morality. These are a bit like tastes, so just as some people might have a "sweet tooth" and others prefer salty or sour, people also show preferences and varying degrees of identifying with the six basic foundational pillars of morality: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Liberty/Oppression, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, and Sanctity/Degradation. I've been thinking about these pillars of morality ever since reading the book, noticing when I run across them as they are utilized in emotional arguments with friends, family, and in the media.

    Intriguingly, these moral foundations illuminate similarities in viewpoints of members of groups who share concern about Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating (Liberals)... and the study of moral psychology thus illuminates reasons great rifts can sometimes occur between Liberals who presume Conservatives do not share their same concerns with regard to Care/Harm and Fairness/Cheating, when studies show Conservatives do care about these things... in addition to all the other elements of moral foundation, and perhaps a bit less than some. What a revelation this is! When we understand that some people respond more quickly and passionately to certain moral appeals than others, with everyone coming up with perfectly rational explanations for why they are correct, it's no small wonder we have such rifts between differing religious and political groups everywhere.

    So how does a better knowledge of moral psychology help in healing social rifts, such as those we may find around the holiday dinner table this year? Haidt explains that learning how people have initial intuitive leanings and viewpoints about things as being good or bad so they subsequently create logical support for them can be extremely important, in order that we can better respect that feelings are the primary driving force. Jonathan Haidt recommends that when we really want to understand someone from a different viewpoint or culture, we do well to listen with open hearts, following a sense of sacredness. This is excellent advice for deep listening in general, as deep listening truly is the best way to show respect to others, and bridge gaps between ourselves and others.

    Highly recommended for any student of psychology, philosophy, political science, political history, logic, communications, journalism, religious studies and religious history... and every single citizen who votes.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted September 1, 2012

    This is honestly one of the best books I have read in years. Hai

    This is honestly one of the best books I have read in years. Haidt makes very convincing arguments for his three main points: 1) intuitions comes first, strategic reason second, 2) there is more to morality than harm and fairness and 3) morality binds and blinds. His writing style is very clear and accessible although I paused several times during the book just to explore some of the many ideas he presents. This book really opened my eyes.

    2 out of 2 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted January 31, 2014

    Boring and expected more.

    This is a rather boring and distracting book with all the "Elephant/Rider" analogy. Probably better just to watch a utube presentation for Michael Shermer about why people believe what they do without very little if no evidence for those beliefs.
    Don't waste your money on Haidt's book.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted July 8, 2013

    Fascinating look at the psychology of morality.

    While I personally disagree with Dr. Haidt, he shares a great deal of knowledge and understanding. While his bias, his elitist attitudes and disdain for the "common" person occassionally come through, it is not strong enough to wholly discredit his work.

    If you are looking for a good attempt to develop a moral code without religious influence, I certainly recommed giving this book serious consideration. He attempts to tie his entire proposed moral code to evolution, and the selection of the fittest. At times it's a stretch, and perhaps annoying, but I think it reflects considerable research, knowledge and insight.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted April 12, 2013

    My highest recommendation. Life-changing potential for the attentive reader.

    A supremely well-research, documented, and cross-referenced scholarly work. Compares, contrasts, and combines accepted as well as discarded research from sociology and psychology disciplines. Great length is devoted to discussing the foundations of morality in various cultures and over long periods of time and distills complex human emotions and reasonings down to a handfull of fundamental concepts and principles that, if understood and incorporated into one's interactions with others of like and unlike political and religious viewpoints, would probably result in a tsunami-like change in interpersonal relationships.
    This book is definitely one of only several books I have read that I would sincerely credit as changing my life for the positive. It creates a whole new template with which to view and communicate with the contentious world in which we live. Agreement is not the goal; understanding and acceptance is.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted May 14, 2014

    Jonathan Haidt, psychologist and of the liberal intelligensia, h

    Jonathan Haidt, psychologist and of the liberal intelligensia, has offered advice on themes for propaganda against Republicans. Target psychological habits common to virtually all and attack on issues of moral philosophy.

    Flaws both psychological and philosophical are numerous and grave, not nullified by eclectic incorporation of entertaining bits from a variety of noted philosophers and psychologists. But this may matter little, as 50 percent of the votes plus 1 is adequate for a tyranny of the majority. Traditional Democrat tactics fared quite well in 2008 and 2012, so adding to them should be needed only if there is a perception that some voters must be won over from the Republican camp to continue the string of victories. In the last case, Republicans may be attacked on what Haidt terms moral foundations Loyalty/betrayal, Authority/subversion, Liberty/oppression, and Sanctity/degradation, factors that will not interest the Democrat core constituency at all but that may encourage disaffection from the Republican constituency.

    His characterization of mankind as 90 percent chimp, 10 percent bee is off target, but perhaps stems from his extensive familiarity with the core constituency of the Democrat Party. His emphasis on "hive behavior" as the means to transform competitive individuals (chimps) into cooperative, altruistic, "ultrasocial" groups (bees) neglects that what he terms "hive behavior" easily slips over into what others would call "mob action," and its attendent propensity to shift to genocide, racism, and other nefarious attributes of thorough-going in-group out-group competition.

    He recognizes Democrat principles place overwhelming emphasis on what he euphemistically terms the Care/harm moral foundation and the Fairness/cheating moral foundation. Of course, these would be more accurately termed "gimmie what I want, because my victimhood means I need it" and "make others pay for it, because I don't have the money due to nefarious practices by those who do." Extension of this emphasis leads naturally to diatribe against "supercorporations" and calls for Government action against them, but that is a side issue and one he waffles on in the addenda.

    He recognizes that moral judgment, like virtually all human judgment, is based primarily on intuition rather than reason. But while he recognizes that many factors are involved in morality, he fails to recognize that moral behavior is predominately a matter of habit, and that this in itself is of paramount importance. Habit is hard to change, and is easiest to mould in early life, but can be extensively altered, to avoid or minimize the weaknesses that result from genetic impulse and uncontrolled environmental influences. Not that a Democrat would ever be interested in shaping moral habits for anything other than the purpose of gaining power, so perhaps this too may matter little.

    For a summary assessment of Haidt's position and message, consider his acknowledgement that his definition of morality, in the normative sense, "would give high marks to fascist and communist societies as well as to cults, so long as they achieved high levels of cooperation by creating a shared moral order." His disclaimer that his morality would be only "an adjunct to other normative theories" politely disregards that theory supporting ideologies and fantasies clearly inimical to the well-being of mankind are not excusible as merely "an adjunct," even were that to be the case.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted October 17, 2013

    The book included a fascinating review of the author's and other

    The book included a fascinating review of the author's and other researchers work on morals set in the context of evolutionary and sociological theory. However, the sections where the author supposedly applied that research to religion and politics was extremely weak. The author's comparison of the production of a can of vegetables to healthcare reimbursement payment was amateurish and not at all based on healthcare research and policy analysis, having based it on an article in Atlantic magazine written by a business man. I found it appalling that the author, an academic researcher, would discuss healthcare without ANY basis in scholarship. The author also drew little from political science or from sociology of religion where he attempted to apply research on morals to religion and politics---the title of the book. The author should have written a book only about the research on morals, or he should have studied the scholarly literature in political science and sociology of religion. In my opinion, the book's title was a sales gimmick to capitalize on the contemporary divisive political climate in the U.S.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Posted December 7, 2012

    more from this reviewer

    As a lay person, with no background in philosophy or psychology,

    As a lay person, with no background in philosophy or psychology, I found this book to be quite challenging to read. I was not so much interested in the research and historical background that he provides in detail, but in the conclusions drawn from them. The explanations of the six moral foundations and how those apply to people of different backgrounds, beliefs, political parties, etc., were easy enough to follow and understand. It should be required reading for members of Congress, though I wonder if it would really help. After all, the book points out that we seek to justify our own beliefs, which is why we fail to see beyond them, and thus we're back to our righteous minds.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted October 22, 2012

    Helped me make some reasoned sense of our contentious world

    An intelligent, scientific exploration of human behavior that has been perplexing to me for many years. This book has helped me become more understanding and tolerant of the heart felt opinions of others (no matter how destructive or stupid they may be:-).

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted November 19, 2013

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 33 Customer Reviews
Page 1 of 2