Sign in with Facebook
Charlene's Reviews > The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
by
by
At first I gave this book 3 stars because I felt like I might have been too critical. After thinking about it a while, I decided I was not merely critical enough. This book should be renamed "How to Justify the Action of Oppressing Human Beings In the Name of Getting Along." You can take any of Haidt's current examples of what to him "seems" like an oppressive act, as he assures you there is some merit to the thinking of oppressive individuals, and replace it with any of the most embarrassing atrocities committed by human being in our past. You will find that his explanations of, "They meant well" and "What they were really trying to do was (insert good intention which requires the exploitation or subjugation of other human beings not in the ingroup)," could apply to the absolute worst atrocities of the past. So, if you are interested in finding a middle ground at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society, this book will make you feel great. If you choose to read it, you will be treated to the tired old argument that suggests that if someone gives to charity (btw Haidt- that would be a charitable act toward only those people they find acceptable) they must be a better human being than someone else who does not donate money or time to a designated "charity" but instead marches in the streets or takes other time consuming action that result in SOCIAL CHANGE for the groups who needed it most.
This book was disappointing on so many levels for me. I love the studies he talked about. I was sure I was going to love the book before I even turned to page one. But each turn of the page demonstrated how easy it is for some to use "science" as a means to help people justify the continuation of horrible behavior that has been going on for far too long. I am shocked at the good ratings this book received.
This book was disappointing on so many levels for me. I love the studies he talked about. I was sure I was going to love the book before I even turned to page one. But each turn of the page demonstrated how easy it is for some to use "science" as a means to help people justify the continuation of horrible behavior that has been going on for far too long. I am shocked at the good ratings this book received.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Righteous Mind.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
February 12, 2014
–
Started Reading
February 12, 2014
– Shelved
February 15, 2014
–
Finished Reading
November 16, 2014
– Shelved as:
philosophy
August 4, 2015
– Shelved as:
neuroscience
Comments Showing 1-16 of 16 (16 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Tom LA
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Dec 29, 2016 02:01PM
Did you actually read the book?
reply
|
flag
Tom Tabasco wrote: "Did you actually read the book?"Every word of it
Grateful for this critical review, and thanks!
Then you entirely missed the point.
What was this missed point, Tom? Please enlighten us with the spoiler! :-)
This review seems a bit overboard: I can think of a few "absolute worst atrocities" for which there is no credible claim that "there is some merit to the thinking of oppressive individuals." No doubt there is some merit to Charlene's thinking, but the review as revised makes it hard to guess the real worth or failure of the book itself.
Jack wrote: "This review seems a bit overboard: I can think of a few "absolute worst atrocities" for which there is no credible claim that "there is some merit to the thinking of oppressive individuals." No dou..."Your comment makes it hard to understand the real worth or failure of the review:) How does the comment "I can think of a few "absolute worst atrocities" for which there is no credible claim that "there is some merit to the thinking of oppressive individuals." " respond to my points made in the review? I am trying to understand how your thinking of atrocities for which there is no credible claim makes my review a bit overboard. I guess I need more information.
I truly love much of Haidt's work, but this was soft science at its worst. IMO, While I commend Haidt for attempting to find common ground, the thoughts expressed in this book are unlikely to help unify the political divide. In fact, it might well justify inequality. As a thought experiment, try applying what is said in this book (if you read the book) to the politics of the past that gave rise to slavery, Jim Crow, or something similar. Do these arguments hold water in the past? My answer is no.
Your review says:You will find that his explanations of, "They meant well" and "What they were really trying to do was (insert good intention which requires the exploitation or subjugation of other human beings not in the ingroup)," could apply to the absolute worst atrocities of the past.
I take issue with that. I might have accepted a somewhat weaker statement, like "... many of the worst ...", but this "... absolute worst ...", being manifestly false, leaves me unsure how much to discount your vehemence.
Jack wrote: "Your review says:You will find that his explanations of, "They meant well" and "What they were really trying to do was (insert good intention which requires the exploitation or subjugation of ot..."
This seems an odd criticism. In the history of America, there have been many atrocities. Some that easily come to mind are slavery and Jim Crow. It is very reasonable to call those events atrocities. It's not overboard. I am talking about past political events by calling them atrocities, and not even in an impassioned manner (no "vehemence"). I am simply having a logical discussion about how to think about various events that have occurred in our political history and how different mindsets have contributed to the political divide. Did you read this book? I feel like you are arguing some odd point that has nothing to do with the book and has arisen from a misreading of my review (because perhaps you are not familiar with the book?).
To be clear, "atrocities" is just a general way to describe cruel acts in history, which were often included in this book. So, would you have a problem with Haidt using the word atrocities to describe the cruel acts of the past he is *discussing in this book*. I am still not clear what your point is or what compelled you to comment on this thread. It doesn't seem to be at all about the book.
Political psychology is actually quite interesting. Haidt tries to make nice with conservatives. Chris Mooney writes on the same stuff but he doesn't try to make nice with the other side. He uses the findings of political psychology to work for the people on the right side of the issues.
I recommend his book "the Republican Brain".
I recommend his book "the Republican Brain".
Another good writer on this but one who merely reports the findings of political psychology is Avi Tuschman and in "Our Political Nature" comes up with an evolutionary psych explanation for the left-right divide.
Peter wrote: "Political psychology is actually quite interesting. Haidt tries to make nice with conservatives. Chris Mooney writes on the same stuff but he doesn't try to make nice with the other side. He uses t..."Thanks. I will check both of those out. Definitely a subject worth exploring. I read Political Brain by Drew Westen, who states his bias right off the bat. I liked it but many friends didn't care for it. He went through various speeches and did some Monday morning quarterbacking that was pretty entertaining but ended up being fairly speculative. Since he didn't really pretend he was doing much more than speculating, that was just fine with me.
Do your concerns about oppression extend to situations when individuals of authentic virtue are oppressed and suppressed by the stupidity, decadence, incompetence and aggression of the mob? Conservatism rejects the idea of equality. Progressivism embraces it. It's pretty simple. FACT: Some people are inherently better than others and yes, "good" can be measured. This, in itself, can be perceived as an "oppression" by those below. Fail to acknowledge this reality, fail to be a conservative, succeed at being wrong in your entire world view. Also succeed at planting the seeds for a society where the race to the bottom becomes the absolute virtue. You will create a society steeped in existential misery - the worst kind of oppression humanity can create. The self-inflicted type.
Great review! You speak from my heart! It seems the enlightenment, that science has never happened for Haidt. Truth is what is advantagous for the cohesion of a group that is competing with others. Or, alternatively, truth does not matter! How come that truthfulness does not appear in the number of categoies Haidt made up for his moral evaluation? Even if we put truth as a fundamental moral value aside (I personally would not want to do it in any case), how, if the survival and peaceful coexistence of all humans of the planet matters, can we ensure this without debunking the sanctity stuff? Loyalty, yes! Very much yes! But towards all human beings, or better all sentient beings!
I do not understand this review. Haidt stresses at several points that his claims about morality are strictly descriptive in nature (e.g. p. 114). As such, justifying anything — let alone the "absolute worst atrocities of the past" is completely alien to his project. He is interested in explaining where moral disagreement comes from, not in adjudicating moral disputes. In this connection, I give you the following passage:
My definition of morality was designed to be a descriptive definition; it cannot stand alone as a normative definition. (As a normative definition, it 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.) (p. 316).
Note, however, that Haidt does indicate the theory that he thinks is most suitable for justifying political policy (but not moral norms). He calls this Durkheimian utilitarianism, utilitarianism advocating the production of the "greatest total good," and the Durkheimian insight being that Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity are important sources of meaning without which the communities necessary to human thriving disintegrate (p. 316).
The idea, in other words, is that policy should aim at achieving the greatest total good, and doing that demands that we consider the web of social norms and relations that allows for that good in the first place. What he is saying here is not a great deal removed from the views of communitarians like Charles Taylor, nor even from old-school Leftists like Jürgen Habermas, who also conceives norms of justice as having to take into account the culturally-specific value-orientations of moral subjects.
Strangest to me, however, is that given the framework of Durkheimian utilitarianism, the only way you could think that Haidt's would justify the "absolute worst atrocities" is if you think that these atrocities actually produced the greatest total good... in which case, we may want to reconsider calling them "atrocities."
Charlene, I think you could have been a little more clear in your comment but I think I get the gist of it because I agree. There is an apology and an excuse being made here for oppression and it is the elephant in the room that no one wants to discuss. It is a right wing post hoc justification of power, morality is just a word in print here
