The Righteous Mind- mods move if this isn't the right forum plz

[Thoughtful]

I'm reading this book by Haidt-- would anyone like to discuss?

I'm in part two where he talks about ethics, and how WEIRDos (Western, educated, industrial, rich, democratic ) value individual rights, but that in other cultures and viewpoints, community (ie- hierarchies and roles) and divinity (ie- child of God, body is a temple, etc) supersede those.

It seems like this is the crux of the issues I have at church. I see that the community ethics (men over women, benevolent sexism, brother Brigham's tradition of keeping women not only below men but humbly subservient, race and the priesthood, singles as menaces or ministering angels) and community interplay with divinity ethics (worlds without number for men and their harem of women and crown of posterity, prosperity gospel, priesthood leadership heirarchies, second anointings, a white and delightsome God we all aspire to become--or for women that we aspire to be handmaidens unto, chastity/ purity doctrines for women as possessions of men) boil down very quickly to directly contradict the ethics of the individual autonomy and individual value-- equality, progression according to desires rather than prescribed roles, and eventually boiling down to the overt conflict between the COB and feminists, intellectuals, scientists, and anyone who doesn't fit the orthodox mold (infertile, singles, gays, divorcees, parents of special needs children, not whites, the poor, democrats, etc).

This is where I get stuck. The author is obviously in the WEIRD category, so Im not sure I get where he's going with the idea that the 3 ethics are better than one.

I was raised TBM, and as such my role was to "take one for the team" with the team being men. The anger I feel toward the church centers around the fact that heterodox individuals are being stomped on.

Am I missing the point, that there's apparently some overarching value in certain people being relegated to lower social castes to benefit the community? As a basically selfish person on one hand (I'm not jumping up and down to maintain a structure that castes me poorly) and being motivated for social justice for all on the other, I'm perplexed at the value of such a system- especially (selfish again) having seen how badly it sucks to be assigned a lower caste by virtue of a chromosome.

I maybe a little self righteously feel that if good things like wealth and education increase the value of the individual, and highlight the injustice of community, then wouldn't it be better to educate the world instead of maintaining structures that keep order -- but on the backs of minorities, women, the poor, etc.

What am I missing? (I'll keep reading too).

[oliver_denom]

This is where I get stuck. The author is obviously in the WEIRD category, so Im not sure I get where he's going with the idea that the 3 ethics are better than one.

I was raised TBM, and as such my role was to "take one for the team" with the team being men. The anger I feel toward the church centers around the fact that heterodox individuals are being stomped on.

Am I missing the point, that there's apparently some overarching value in certain people being relegated to lower social castes to benefit the community? As a basically selfish person on one hand (I'm not jumping up and down to maintain a structure that castes me poorly) and being motivated for social justice for all on the other, I'm perplexed at the value of such a system- especially (selfish again) having seen how badly it sucks to be assigned a lower caste by virtue of a chromosome.

I maybe a little self righteously feel that if good things like wealth and education increase the value of the individual, and highlight the injustice of community, then wouldn't it be better to educate the world instead of maintaining structures that keep order -- but on the backs of minorities, women, the poor, etc.

What am I missing? (I'll keep reading too).

Haidt is building his argument based in biology and evolution. He's not trying to argue that any ethic is inherently good or bad, but that from an evolutionary perspective, some behaviors have aided the survival of society better than others. For example: loyalty, authority, and fairness bring a certain amount of stability to society and have aided economic development. In the absence of other guarantees, a society who can develop trust through the spoken word or a handshake is able to perform more trade and move more goods than those requiring complex systems of collateral and law enforcement. Does that mean these particular foundations are objectively "good"? Not necessarily. The same sort of trust that may allow Mormons to do business with one another more cheaply by eliminating the need for legal agreements or contracts, can also allow those people to be taken advantage of. We're looking at this on the aggregate and over long periods of time.

The other thing to point out here is that Haidt is not making an is / ought type argument. He isn't saying that just because something is a certain way, that it must therefore be best. He's only pointing out the circumstance and situations where each of these foundations may have developed in the deep past.

The appreciation I got from the book was being able to better understand and empathize with people who hold more conservative perspectives, especially with members of the church. They are often painted as uncaring monsters, when their actual experience and objectives are better understood as keeping to a different priority of equally moral principles.

There's no right or wrong valuation happening here, no better or worse.

[Thoughtful]

This is where I get stuck. The author is obviously in the WEIRD category, so Im not sure I get where he's going with the idea that the 3 ethics are better than one.

I was raised TBM, and as such my role was to "take one for the team" with the team being men. The anger I feel toward the church centers around the fact that heterodox individuals are being stomped on.

Am I missing the point, that there's apparently some overarching value in certain people being relegated to lower social castes to benefit the community? As a basically selfish person on one hand (I'm not jumping up and down to maintain a structure that castes me poorly) and being motivated for social justice for all on the other, I'm perplexed at the value of such a system- especially (selfish again) having seen how badly it sucks to be assigned a lower caste by virtue of a chromosome.

I maybe a little self righteously feel that if good things like wealth and education increase the value of the individual, and highlight the injustice of community, then wouldn't it be better to educate the world instead of maintaining structures that keep order -- but on the backs of minorities, women, the poor, etc.

What am I missing? (I'll keep reading too).

Haidt is building his argument based in biology and evolution. He's not trying to argue that any ethic is inherently good or bad, but that from an evolutionary perspective, some behaviors have aided the survival of society better than others. For example: loyalty, authority, and fairness bring a certain amount of stability to society and have aided economic development. In the absence of other guarantees, a society who can develop trust through the spoken word or a handshake is able to perform more trade and move more goods than those requiring complex systems of collateral and law enforcement. Does that mean these particular foundations are objectively "good"? Not necessarily. The same sort of trust that may allow Mormons to do business with one another more cheaply by eliminating the need for legal agreements or contracts, can also allow those people to be taken advantage of. We're looking at this on the aggregate and over long periods of time.

The other thing to point out here is that Haidt is not making an is / ought type argument. He isn't saying that just because something is a certain way, that it must therefore be best. He's only pointing out the circumstance and situations where each of these foundations may have developed in the deep past.

The appreciation I got from the book was being able to better understand and empathize with people who hold more conservative perspectives, especially with members of the church. They are often painted as uncaring monsters, when their actual experience and objectives are better understood as keeping to a different priority of equally moral principles.

There's no right or wrong valuation happening here, no better or worse.

I think I haven't delved in far enough yet. He did say 3 are better than one and I'm like, "whoa." I'm reading on, but maybe too self righteous in thinking my ethics are best.

[Ghost]

I read this book a few years ago, and I still think about it a lot.

One of the things that really resonated with me was his discussion of how we think our behavior and morality are based on reason but we really just attempt to use reason to justify our preexisting conclusions.

I found this insightful in part because I'd already thought somewhat along those lines and I appreciated finding something supporting my view. It was not lost on me that I seemed to be falling into a trap similar to the one he described regarding the principle itself. But what can you do?

[Thoughtful]

I finished the book yesterday, finally.

I'm feeling unsatisfied with the ending though there was a lot I liked about it. He ended with basically be a better listener and look for common ground-- which is basically obvious IMO.

Ok but -- I'm really kinda baffled at how I became a dirty liberal, if not due to reason & education. My people--spouseman, parents, church and work communities are all highly conservative. I was steeped in it environmentally and genetically but still feel like it has a lot of disturbing tenets that are basically like Haidt says they think, the idea that a societal hierarchy is worth screwing some individuals (who are typically from less privileged groups). Nevermind rights to "self determination" or other higher order (IMO) ethical codes. Plus I've been a feminist since early childhood -- to my family's chagrin. How did I end up with a maladaptive elephant given that it's been pretty difficult way to live in my society?

[dogbite]

There are a number of kinds of selection. Most of the time when talking evolution we talk about stabilizing selection where a particular trait comes to dominate. But there are evolutionary rewards for maintaining a diverse pool as well to deal with sudden changes. You're part of the diversified pool at least for the liberal view traits.

[oliver_denom]

There are a number of kinds of selection. Most of the time when talking evolution we talk about stabilizing selection where a particular trait comes to dominate. But there are evolutionary rewards for maintaining a diverse pool as well to deal with sudden changes. You're part of the diversified pool at least for the liberal view traits.

Yes, this. There's nothing maladaptive about being a liberal in a conservative community. From the perspective of natural selection, diversity is a positive, and society needs all sorts. Conservatives create an environment of safety and stability. Liberals prevent that society from stagnation and keep the majority from trampling the minority.

The day dream from each extreme that life would be better without the other is a dangerous and false fantasy, from a survival perspective. Societies need balance.

[BriansThoughtMirror]

It's been quite a while since I read this one, but I also really liked it- it did help me see the church and it's members as decent, reasonable human beings instead of monsters. It helped me to understand, forgive, and even appreciate. I ended up emailing Haidt to tell him about it and thank him for his research, which was fun!

I generally agree with oliver_denom. If I remember correctly, he's not saying that those specific conservative social norms are good for all individuals. Rather, he's saying that having strong hierarchies, taboos, common sacred beliefs, gods, etc. can make a society more cohesive and therefore more powerful and able to compete. Unfortunately, this can come at the expense of underprivileged members of those societies. So, on the whole, those conservative beliefs do some good and some bad. He claims that liberal morality tends to better protect the underprivileged members, but that it fails to create a strong, unified common identity and common trust in the same way, at least at a large scale. So, liberal morality can be better for individuals, but add cost to society as a whole. The fight between those two extremes, hopefully, can provide some sort of functional balance.

Have you listened to any of Haidt's TED talks? They are all really great! His talk on spirituality was one of my favorite TED talks ever. I also recommend "The Happiness Hypothesis". It was a lighter read than the Righteous Mind, and though it covers some of the same material, he goes more into the benefits of certain types of spirituality and morality. It stuck with me a bit more. I remember having really high hopes for "The Righteous Mind" and having them almost met.

[Thoughtful]

It's been quite a while since I read this one, but I also really liked it- it did help me see the church and it's members as decent, reasonable human beings instead of monsters. It helped me to understand, forgive, and even appreciate. I ended up emailing Haidt to tell him about it and thank him for his research, which was fun!

I generally agree with oliver_denom. If I remember correctly, he's not saying that those specific conservative social norms are good for all individuals. Rather, he's saying that having strong hierarchies, taboos, common sacred beliefs, gods, etc. can make a society more cohesive and therefore more powerful and able to compete. Unfortunately, this can come at the expense of underprivileged members of those societies. So, on the whole, those conservative beliefs do some good and some bad. He claims that liberal morality tends to better protect the underprivileged members, but that it fails to create a strong, unified common identity and common trust in the same way, at least at a large scale. So, liberal morality can be better for individuals, but add cost to society as a whole. The fight between those two extremes, hopefully, can provide some sort of functional balance.

Have you listened to any of Haidt's TED talks? They are all really great! His talk on spirituality was one of my favorite TED talks ever. I also recommend "The Happiness Hypothesis". It was a lighter read than the Righteous Mind, and though it covers some of the same material, he goes more into the benefits of certain types of spirituality and morality. It stuck with me a bit more. I remember having really high hopes for "The Righteous Mind" and having them almost met.

Thanks, I'll check these out.