`Author:` Jonathan Haidt `Availability:` [[Suggestions]] #### Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion > [!info] > ## Key Takeaways ## Summary Haidt offers insights into why people have such fundamentally different political beliefs and, crucially, how they can still engage meaningfully. While it doesn’t focus on validating, it explore the [[Psychology]] behind political divides in a way that can help mitigate feelings of anger or frustration. It may provide comfort in understanding why people are drawn to certain ideologies while maintaining empathy and composure. ## Quotes - ## Notes In The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by [[Politics]] and [[Religion]], Jonathan Haidt explores moral [[Psychology]] and the factors influencing human decision-making. The concept of a continuum is not explicitly central in the text, but it connects implicitly through several themes: ### 1. Moral Foundations as a Continuum Haidt posits that humans have six key moral foundations: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. These foundations are not binary but exist along a spectrum. Different individuals and cultures emphasise these foundations to varying degrees, creating a continuum of moral priorities. For instance, liberals tend to prioritise care and fairness, while conservatives value loyalty, authority, and sanctity more highly. **Loyalty and Social Structures**: • Haidt’s emphasis on _loyalty/betrayal_ resonates with Foucault’s observations on how communities maintain cohesion through shared norms and the marginalisation of deviants. However, Foucault would likely focus on how loyalty is constructed and enforced through mechanisms of power. #### 2. Political Ideologies The book discusses how political ideologies fall on a continuum, ranging from liberal to conservative, shaped by the differing weight people place on the moral foundations. Rather than viewing these ideologies as opposing absolutes, Haidt frames them as points along a spectrum, suggesting that political divisions stem from variations in moral emphasis rather than fundamental incompatibilities. #### 3. Human Nature and Morality Haidt describes moral decision-making as a balance between intuition and reasoning. These are not dichotomies but aspects of a continuum in how humans process information and justify beliefs. Intuitive processes often dominate, with reasoning acting as a post-hoc justification along this spectrum. #### 4. Cultural and Evolutionary Perspectives Haidt integrates evolutionary psychology to argue that morality developed to bind individuals into cohesive groups. Cultures exist on a continuum of moral frameworks, influenced by historical, environmental, and social factors, showing how morality adapts rather than being universally fixed. In these ways, The Righteous Mind links to the idea of a continuum by highlighting the spectrum-like nature of moral, political, and psychological phenomena, encouraging readers to see differences as gradations rather than rigid divisions. **Power as Central**: • For Foucault, morality cannot be separated from power. Haidt’s framework does not explicitly address the role of power in shaping moral foundations, which Foucault would critique as overlooking the socio-political forces at play. Haidt’s moral foundations theory provides a structured framework to understand moral diversity, while Foucault’s ideas offer a critical lens on the historical and power-laden processes that produce moralities. Together, they complement each other by highlighting both the psychological tendencies and socio-political constructions that shape human moral systems. ### The six key moral foundations As identified by moral psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt, provide a framework for understanding diverse ethical perspectives. When examined through the lenses of **anarchistic** (decentralised, [[egalitarian]]) and **hierarchical** (structured, authority-driven) viewpoints, each foundation reveals contrasting interpretations and applications. Here’s an exploration of how these divisions manifest or resist being classified: **1. Care/Harm** • **Anarchistic viewpoint:** Emphasises empathy and mutual aid without formal structures. Compassionate action is seen as the natural responsibility of individuals within a community. For example, anarchists might prioritise grassroots, community-led initiatives for caregiving. • **Hierarchical viewpoint:** Frames care as an institutional responsibility, often mediated through structured organisations (e.g., welfare systems, charities). Authority figures or entities (such as governments or religious institutions) are viewed as central to ensuring care is delivered effectively. **Divisibility:** This foundation is readily divisible, as anarchistic and hierarchical systems both value care but differ on the mechanisms and authority structures for delivering it. **2. Fairness/Cheating** • **Anarchistic viewpoint:** Stresses egalitarianism and fairness through equity and voluntary cooperation. Cheating is seen as a failure to honour mutual agreements within a community where power imbalances are minimised. • **Hierarchical viewpoint:** Often linked to meritocratic or rule-based systems. Fairness is framed as adherence to established rules and norms, even if those rules perpetuate unequal power dynamics. **Divisibility:** This foundation is divisive, as anarchistic ideals reject power hierarchies, whereas hierarchical views may accept inequality as long as it follows an established order. **3. Loyalty/Betrayal** • **Anarchistic viewpoint:** Loyalty is to shared principles or the [[Community]] as a whole, rather than to a single leader or institution. Betrayal might be seen as acting against collective goals or values. • **Hierarchical viewpoint:** Loyalty is directed toward specific leaders, organisations, or nations. Betrayal is often framed as defiance of authority or deviation from established norms. **Divisibility:** This foundation is distinct in its interpretation, as anarchistic perspectives decentralise loyalty, while [[hierarchical]] ones centralise it around specific entities. **4. Authority/Subversion** • **Anarchistic viewpoint:** Authority is often viewed with suspicion. Respect is granted based on merit or shared values rather than imposed hierarchies. Subversion is a valid response to illegitimate authority. • **Hierarchical viewpoint:** Authority is seen as vital for maintaining order and stability. Subversion is typically regarded as dangerous or disruptive. **Divisibility:** This foundation is sharply divided, as anarchism challenges the very premise of hierarchical authority, while hierarchical views depend on it. **5. Sanctity/Degradation** • **Anarchistic viewpoint:** Sanctity might be tied to shared ideals or personal autonomy rather than religious or cultural hierarchies. For instance, the sanctity of nature or human dignity could be upheld without institutional enforcement. • **Hierarchical viewpoint:** Sanctity is often defined by traditional or institutional norms, such as religious decrees, cultural practices, or laws. Deviation is considered degradation. **Divisibility:** There is overlap but also significant divergence, especially in how sanctity is defined and enforced, with anarchistic views resisting institutionalised definitions. **6. Liberty/Oppression** • **Anarchistic viewpoint:** Liberty is paramount and defined as freedom from coercion, domination, or systemic oppression. Hierarchies are inherently oppressive and must be dismantled. • **Hierarchical viewpoint:** Liberty is seen as freedom within the boundaries of a structured system. Oppression is addressed selectively, often by modifying rather than abolishing hierarchies. **Divisibility:** This foundation is fundamentally split, as anarchism and hierarchy often have incompatible definitions of liberty and oppression. **Summary of Divisibility** Each moral foundation can generally be divided into anarchistic and hierarchical viewpoints, though the extent of the division varies. Some (like **authority/subversion** and **liberty/oppression**) exhibit stark contrasts, while others (such as **care/harm**) allow for more nuanced overlaps despite differing methods of implementation. These divisions highlight how foundational moral principles can be shaped by underlying philosophical commitments to either decentralised or structured systems of power and organisation. `Concepts:` [[Politics]] [[Psychology]] `Knowledge Base:` [[Books index]]