Philosophical Psychology· 2013Q1
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
- 1,410citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2013year
Short summary
This paper critiques Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind," arguing that while his aim to explain political and religious divides through distinct moral views is noble, his key explanations and prescriptions are flawed.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Critiques Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" on political and religious divides.
- Acknowledges Haidt's aim to explain differences via distinct moral views.
- Argues Haidt's key explanations, inferences, and prescriptions are wanting.
- Suggests a weaker version of Haidt's view could be defended.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind seeks to explain why it is difficult for liberals and conservatives to get along. His aim is not just explanatory but also prescriptive. Once we understand that the differences between disputants spring from distinct moral views held by equally sincere people, then we will no longer have reason for deep political animus. Conservatives and Liberals have distinct (although somewhat overlapping) moral views and they understand human nature differently. He claims that these differences are best understood by consulting an array of psychological studies, key genetic findings, and the theoretical underpinnings of sociobiology. After summarizing his arguments, we isolate and discuss the three most important and contentious issues in his book. We argue that although the project’s motivation is noble and some of his findings are insightful, his key explanations, inferences, and prescriptions are wanting. We end by suggesting a way he could defend a weaker version of his view.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Philosophical Psychology, 2013 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: History and Philosophy of Science
History and Philosophy of ScienceArts and Humanities