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

• Author: Powell, Aaron Ross
• Position: Book review

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

Jonathan Haidt

New York: Pantheon, 2012, 419 pp.

The Righteous Mind offers a comprehensive and intriguing answer to that age-old political question, "Why do so many people disagree with me?" After all, I believe what I believe because I think the evidence and arguments are convincing. Otherwise, I wouldn't believe it. So why do others disagree?

According to Jonathan Haidt, the reason you and I can look at the same facts and come to different political conclusions is that we morally value different things. I may place much more weight on preventing harm than you do, while you have a stronger sense of fairness. Because what we value ultimately determines what we think the state ought to do, if our values differ significantly our political ideologies will too.

Haidt's written a book that's quite likely to color how many of its readers think about political differences. I know it did for me. Still, I have two concerns. First, Haidt overstates the explanatory power of his thesis by appearing to discount the role partisanship and tribalism play in voters' assessments of candidates and policies. Second, Haidt's research method, which depends on self-identification for categorizing people into political ideologies, may run into serious problems undermining its accuracy. Neither concern makes the book not worth reading, however. The Righteous Mind contains significant insights and ought to be studied by all of us who spend time trying to affect political change.

Haidt begins with the idea that "morality binds and blinds." He argues, based on studies he's conducted over many years, that our moral views are predominantly intuitive. Articulable justification comes only after intuition provides us with an answer. A striking example comes when he asks subjects to consider a dog killed by a car. Rather than bury it, the dog's owner takes the body home, butchers it, cleans it carefully, and eats it. Is that act immoral?

Haidt found that most people immediately answer yes. You just can't eat pets. Things get interesting when Haidt pushes back, asking them to articulate why. It can't be because of a moral prohibition on harm, because the owner didn't harm the dog. It can't be because this might upset the neighbors, because they didn't see it. It's not unhealthy, nor will it do psychological damage to the owner (who may find it the best way to cope with the loss of his friend). And so on.

Haidt argues that we can use these carefully contrived cases to expose...