2013/09/13 by Hugh LaFollette, Michael L. Woodruff · 2 citations
Arts and Humanities · Neuroscience · Psychology · Social Sciences · #Environmental ethics #Epistemology #Evolution and Science Education #Evolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation #Key (lock) #Law #Motivated reasoning #Philosophy #Political Philosophy and Ethics #Political psychology #Political science #Politics #Psychology #Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment #Social psychology #Sociobiology #Sociology #State (computer science)
paper · doi:10.1080/09515089.2013.838752
openalex publication_date 2015/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
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.