It turns out you’re a self-righteous hypocrite. Poor you. If only you followed my morality, then you’d be on the right path. But I suppose we can’t all be right. Don’t get me wrong though. Your pitiable beliefs' leading you astray in no way brings me great pleasure. How could confirming something I knew all along really satisfy me? In truth, I feel sorry for you. You built up such an elaborate artifice, and you tried to impose it on others. You were so sure you had it figured out. How could you have been so blind? Heck, I’m sure you’re asking yourself that already, so there’s no need for me to bury you any further.
What’s really sad, though? You drafted so many other people to your team. You knew how people want to win friends and influence others (i.e. be social), and so you gave them an in-group. And you knew that once you hooked their intuitions, you’d have them in your clutches. For what is reason but the slave to our intuitions? We’re almost too talented at justifying what we do and what we believe, aren’t we? You knew that you could build any moral system and find a way to substantiate and sustain it. You just needed enough followers to bind and blind. Give people a bias and they have something reliable to confirm for the rest of their lives. Our world is so generous: it gives us exactly what we need for that stability.
Of course we both know that the world’s generosity is really cruelty. Look at how it fossilizes us, fusing us with the decaying reality of our ideas! It mocks us, manipulates us to reason our way into collective suicide! Well, at least that’s what happened to you. But can I fault you for your team loyalty? After all, you had every reason to commit. It all made so much sense, didn’t it? It all came together so well . . . so well that it would be foolish to question its truth. It just had to be right, right? How could anyone look at things in any other way? Surely they all must be wrong, for your way of seeing was so right. And it wasn’t just your way of seeing. Oh no! Every other reasonable person you knew saw things the same way. And if there’s one truth, it’s this: the team you’re currently on is always the winning team.
But come on, say it. Taste how good, how beautifully poetic, it feels to say it: “You were right.” Redemption is sweet.
In his book The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, social psychologist Jonathan Haidt uses a diverse range of scientific fields to explore how and why a diverse range of people find it so difficult to reconcile their diversity. In magnifying our stubborn inclinations and showing how we’re all born to be righteous, he follows three main threads, which combine to tie up quite the neat little package: (1) Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. (2) There’s more to morality than harm and fairness. (3) Morality binds and blinds. Haidt elucidates each claim with clever metaphors and substantiates each metaphor with research, experimentation, and experience. For the full breadth of his vision, especially his moral foundations theory, read the book. (And yes, that is a command.) What you’ll find either way is that the self-righteous persona (with whom we can all identify to some extent) preceding this paragraph discovers bitter irony in the process. In other words, if you’re looking to vindicate your morality, or at least your personal brand of it, and not simply understand the fundamental human tendencies that beget all our moral structures, you’re in for the same rude awakening that awaits our friend. That is, of course, if our friend has the humble awareness to admit his self-righteous delusions.
I wonder to what extent Haidt’s book speaks to the people that need to listen most (and I realize that I’m embedding a self-righteous position in that curiosity). Sadly, the audience that would benefit most from his balanced exploration of morality would likely never go near the book. After all, they already have the books that tell them their truths (or at least the truths they need to confirm the very truths those books espouse...if that makes any sense). And so it would be easy to dismiss Haidt as just another relativist masquerading as an objective observer. The problem is that if we’re too quick to dismiss Haidt, if we’re too eager to fall right back into the moral matrix that we’ve built around us, if we’re too ignorant to recognize the bricks that made that structure, we will always be stuck in our small, “comfortable” homes. And when all our homes collapse, there won’t be a single self-righteous person left to demand that oh-so-sweet piece of existential redemption: “You were right.”
All we have to do, it seems, is open our doors to the other houses around us. We don’t have to go into those houses or change residences. We don’t have to welcome others into our homes nor expect them to live with us. We simply have to remain open to dialogue, to understanding the other houses around us, to seeing where and how others live. Because of how we operate, this won’t break down all the walls that separate us, and Haidt isn’t saying that such destruction is necessary or even useful. It’s about giving ourselves a path to greater clarity with the understanding that we’ll never see anything “right.” In the end, we can keep our houses. But why not bring every house closer to the same human community?
-- Lou Canelli
I read the amazon reviews (the one-star being the most entertaining as always) and people complained of the author’s conservative bias within the book (something about conservatives consider more virtue categories than liberals). Is this claim substantiated in the book or is it simply the automatic reaction of people who read a blurb out of context and decided to be angry about it?
Within the framework of his moral foundations theory, Haidt does show how conservatives tend to consider more virtue categories than liberals, but the way he uses his theory is to showcase the strengths and limitations of each side. That simplistic binary reduction of political thought isn’t something he prefers, especially since he’s striving for an understanding of the complex diversity of moral and political perspectives, but he still explores its reality through his theory. Regardless of his methods, he doesn’t end up promoting conservatives or liberals as getting it right. He wants to prove that we’re all onto something, and that we can learn a heck of a lot from each other if we’re willing to listen.
Note too that he isn’t somehow promoting himself as superior for being so open-minded. Evidently, critics of the book aren’t buying his act. I felt he was genuinely exploring the issues and not imposing any excessive bias.
The fact that people are getting angry about the book is pretty ironic actually once you read it since they’re feeding into exactly what prompted him to write the book: why we become such ardent supporters of a particular belief system.
Also, definitely check out the links below for his interviews.
EconTalk podcast January 20, 2014
Jonathan Haidt on the Righteous Mind
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/01/jonathan_haidt.html#
Point of Inquiry podcast March 19, 2012
Jonathan Haidt – The Righteous Mind
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jonathan_haidt_the_righteous_mind/
While I agree that self-righteous moral fanaticism is toxic and I also agree that almost everyone, be they on the left or on the right, is well-intentioned in their values, when values are discussed outside of philosophy blogs or academic settings, real life issues and the quality of people’s lives are at stake.
A woman who is denied the right to abortion because of conservative legislation or someone who does not have access to quality medical or dental care due to free market values might well be very indignant and I see no reason to criticize them for their indignation or rage, even if that indignation/rage is unseeming from Haidt’s Olympian perspective.
I may have misrepresented Haidt, but his goal isn’t to criticize anyone for indignation or emotions associated with morality. Instead, he was trying to understand the source of our emotions (which then help solidify our righteous stance). The point isn’t to eliminate emotions, especially when there are very real consequences at stake. When emotions prohibit meaningful dialogue, there’s a problem. Granted, the cases you seem to be thinking of are situations where the dialogue is effectively closed off by the other side, so the indignation stems from that imposed silence more than anything.
Anyway, I see what you’re saying, but I think what Haidt offers isn’t ivory tower speculation about morality but means to practical change. It’s just a really challenging change that he’s promoting.
It’s true that in order to change things, we need to understand them and that includes understanding people with values that we do not share.
At times change comes about through dialogue and as you say, dialogue is only possible when there is some understanding of where others are coming from.
However, in lots of cases differing interests are at stake. It’s not in the interests of higher income groups to pay higher taxes in order subsidize quality medical care for low-income groups. Generally, we all tend to rationalize our interests in moral terms and I have no doubt that most wealthy people who view higher taxes with horror genuinely see not paying higher taxes as question of principles. Similarly, those without enough money to pay for quality healthcare see quality healthcare for all, not as just satisfying their own personal needs, but as a human right.
Where differing interests are at stake (and that is often the case in public affairs), dialogue does not help much to solve problems. Generally, clashes of interest in a democratic society are resolved through elections or through the process of negotiation, which is not the same thing as dialogue. However, even in the case of negotiations, it’s useful to understand how the other party’s mind functions and there Haidt once again is helpful. In addition, fanaticism, besides being toxic in itself, blinds those who have it and makes them less effective in political terms especially when politics reaches the stage of negotiation.
Finally, I’d like to point out that fanaticism, in spite of its defects outlined above, is a useful fuel for political movements, for what one might call “the infantry” of political action. Fanaticism and simplistic moral self-righteous gets people on the streets on cold days marching for “good causes” and that’s something to ponder.
Re: Fanaticism.
Personally, I do not want fanatics running my government or setting social trends. When fanatics are in charge, people get shot, disappear, and lose liberty and freedom. So I respectfully dissent from W’s opinion.
For an insightful viewpoint on loyalty politics, I would recommend a book by John Burt called Lincoln’s Tragic Pragmatism. I realize this is a philosophy website and the way Burt uses the term pragmatism may throw some people off, but he gives a great take on partisan dynamics and how democracy can lead to the opposite of what you hope for, namely reasoned compromise. In group dynamics, it is unseemly to battle for mere interests. You have to make it a matter of principle and refuse to budge an inch to avoid being a selfish cretin.
What confuses me about these declarations to move towards a more open mindset is always the goal (besides of course, indoctrinating you all into my prevailing ideas of openness, because those are the right ones). When we do finally crawl from our enclosed homes and peek behind everyone else’s doors, what do we expect to find there? The ACTUAL right answer? Some perfect Bible hidden among the scattered bookshelves of fanatics? Surely not, the quest is not so single minded. We simply search for a more moderate path of thought, and that can lead us…to a single hive mind. We seem to end up with one answer either way, or with just another two extremes. Fanaticism surely causes conflict, but seems to make life interesting, at least for those of us who get to sit and watch the extremists from a safe vantage point.
I realize Haidt hardly intends such a world of single minded people, but promotes learning and experiencing each other to better ourselves. I just wonder what exactly “better” is. This goes off the basis that we are all at least a little wrong. Who’s to say that my self-righteousness isn’t actually correct? If you say that I have no authority to declare that, what gives you authority to declare that it is wrong? Why should I bother looking for something else when my delusion still holds steady despite you and your fancy words trying to break down my door? (I realize I’m playing into Haidt’s hands here by fighting his viewloint, and that’s the beauty of an argument for openness, the one who makes it can stare his opposition in the face and laugh because they don’t follow the obviously correct path of open minded thought.)
It’s a shame Haidt buys into group selection. It’s so highly implausible. In fact that’s really the only subject he goes into in the book that isn’t found anywhere else in reviews of the book or interviews of him. So don’t buy the book. It’s a waste of money.
I’d recommend people listen to these or other interviews with Haidt and decide for yourself if you want to read the book
EconTalk podcast January 20, 2014
Jonathan Haidt on the Righteous Mind
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2014/01/jonathan_haidt.html#
Point of Inquiry podcast March 19, 2012
Jonathan Haidt – The Righteous Mind
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/jonathan_haidt_the_righteous_mind/
The comment against group selection seems to lack any historical understanding. And seems to lack understanding of human psychology and how tribal humans are. Which in some cases makes many great things possible but also is at the root of so many conflicts of race, ethnicity, nationalism, religion, and so much more.
This part bee is a double edged sword. In group out group psychology brings in group cooperation and belonging and identity and meaning but if there is an in group it is defined by an out group which is “the other” and can be enslaved and killed etc.
Sadly the cases of this are too many and too heart breaking to number. I personally think books like Haidts here are so important for us to recognize all of this so we get over ourselves and our self righteous minds and dismissals of others and of their ideas which maybe different than our own.
This is the human race finally growing up.
I think this is a pretty cogent refutation of group selection:
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection
I don’t think it “refutes” but it gives context to the discussions going on.
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection#22478
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection#22481
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection#22468
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection#22482
http://edge.org/conversation/the-false-allure-of-group-selection#22475
Ok, so if I understand what Jonathan Haidt was saying in his response, he means that the group can be seen as the extended phenotype of the gene, where the gene has the effect of benefiting the group’s survival. I still don’t understand why this isn’t individual-level selection since the individual is the one that has to survive and carry on the genes that benefit the group. Can you explain this to me or point me to a one of the other responses that elucidates this issue?
Also, Dan Dennett points out that groups can be carriers of memes, which influence group cohesion. I’m quite fond of the meme view and I think it makes more sense than group selection.
I’m stepping well beyond the boundaries of my knowledge here, but Haidt seems concerned with trying to clarify human behavior, especially in terms of group dynamics, in order to begin building bridges between the groups that may help us surmount our self-righteous inclinations. If we can make any sense of why we join and righteously promote tribes, what difference does it make what name we ultimately assign to the behavior? At that point, we’re arguing over nominal priority, which in itself creates unnecessary additional groups to which we can claim allegiance (which may then reinforce Haidt’s idea anyway). And whether these self-righteous inclinations cause group formation and the consequent in-group bias or are the effect of group participation…does it matter? Here’s what Haidt observes: we have a history of binding ourselves in groups and blinding ourselves to other groups’ ways of seeing. Why is this so, what are the consequences, and what can/should be done about it? For Haidt, most of the behavior isn’t destructive but essential to survival, and those behaviors can be explained more effectively by group motivation than personal motivation. Perhaps it’s that our self-interest can become displaced by group-interest because we link the self so intimately to the group. We are absorbed by the group and sacrifice the self. This seems an illogical leap to think that the biology of our genes can be usurped by some externally adaptive process, such as that suggested by memes, an idea Richard Dawkins posited at the same time that he assigned strange anthropomorphic agency to genes, in that they were “selfish.”
Eva Brann, in the Heraclitus episode (79), pointed out something interesting to keep in mind here. Every explanation we construct is metaphorical. In the end, without going so far as to dismiss everything with the excoriated term of relativism, we don’t make any progress in practically relating to each other by worrying so desperately about the words we use to create relations in general.
Anyway, this clarified nothing, effectively sidestepped your question, and opened up a number of other potential arguments. Sorry for the discursive response. I felt compelled to write something, and this was the impoverished best I could do for now.
I’dd add David Brin’s voice (which has inspired interesting reactions) to this topic:
http://www.davidbrin.com/addiction.html