The Righteous Mind summary

Is it wrong to eat human flesh or copulate with a dead chicken? Most people would instantly and intuitively feel that both actions were somehow wrong.

These kinds of intuitions or “gut feelings” always drive moral decision making. They can be seen especially clearly in infants who have not yet developed a capacity for reason. In one experiment, 6–10-month old infants were shown a puppet show with two puppets: a nice one and a mean one. After watching the show, most infants preferred the “good” puppet. This demonstrates that, to some extent, morality is prompted by intuitions even when the subject is unable to reason.

Most people think that moral reasoning is a detached, sterile process, unaffected by self-interest or concerns about what other people might think. However, both self-interest and self-consciousness affect moral reasoning.

Firstly, we are all preoccupied with what others think of us. Research proves that even people who swear that they are completely unaffected by the opinions of others still experience a decline in self-esteem when they're given a low rating by a stranger. This shows that we are concerned about our reputation without even realizing it.

If anyone has ever taken advantage of you, you probably experienced a sense of contempt for them and a desire to see them punished. This tendency is the same in all cultures. But where does this moral instinct come from?

According to the Moral Foundations Theory, it's the product of a universal moral foundation of fairness. Universal moral foundations are the source of all our moral instincts, and they are shared across all cultures.

Nearly all research in psychology is conducted on a very small subset of the human population: people from cultures that are WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic). But this subset is actually the least representative you could choose if you wanted to make generalizations about human psychology.

For example, studies show that while the moral values of WEIRD people are overtly individualistic, the moral values of non-WEIRD people emphasize things like the community and the sacred. This means that non-WEIRD people are more inclined to put their families, nations and religions before their individual needs. WEIRD people, on the other hand, are almost exclusively concerned with protecting individuals and their rights.

Many of us would readily agree that most of the time people act selfishly – we want more money, higher status and more happiness than those around us. And yet, at the same time, people are capable of astonishing altruism and selflessness. For example, after the September 11, 2001 attacks, hundreds of Americans drove great distances to New York in the hope that they could help to dig survivors out of the wreckage. Why are we such a strange mix of selfishness and selflessness?

Firstly, people’s selfishness can be explained by natural selection at an individual level. Throughout history, individuals have been pitted against each other in a competition that selects and rewards selfishness. In this way, our minds have been shaped by relentless individual competition.

If you have ever lost yourself rooting with the audience at a college football game or dancing at a rave, you have experienced the human ability to become like bees in a hive, a strong sense of belonging to a group and striving for the common good.

This sensation of being part of something larger than yourself is no delusion. We all have a "hive switch" that is hardwired into our brains, thanks to the evolutionary advantage it provides. The passion and ecstasy that group rituals can generate bring collective interests to the fore and bind the group together.

It is no secret that many scientists feel a strong disdain for religion. But that's because they only focus on one of its functions: the way it blinds its followers by impairing their ability to think rationally. Some scientists claim that religious beliefs are delusions that prevent people from embracing science, secularism and modernity.

These scientists are partially right: religious communities can commit atrocious acts if their moral systems glorify their own "flock" while at the same time demonizing another group.

Why do the working class generally vote Republican when it is the Democratic Party that wants to redistribute money more evenly in society? Maybe because these voters are, in fact, voting for their moral interests, which fit better with the conservative morality of the Republicans than the liberal morality of the Democratic Party.

The moral interests of liberals are limited to concerns about care, fairness and liberty:

Most people are familiar with the heated political debates that rage between liberals and conservatives. Worryingly, it seems there is less and less middle ground between the groups.

In fact, public policy has become more polarized than ever, a development that is noticeably reflected by voters. From 1976 to 2008, the proportion of Americans living in highly partisan counties increased from 27 percent to 48 percent, and today fewer people than ever before call themselves centrists or moderates.

The main takeaway of this Blink to The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt is that moral judgments arise from our intuitions because humans are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. 

Moral judgments arise from our intuitions because humans are fundamentally intuitive, not rational. In addition, the reasoning that follows our intuitions does not work like a judge, guiding us to sober moral wisdom. It works more like a lawyer, justifying our moral judgments to others and ourselves, supporting our reputation and our self-interest.