1
In the book, "The Righteous Mind: How Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" the author demonstrates how people are wired elementarily to be moral. In the original context, according to my understanding, I always believed that the morality of a person came from the way they are brought up. This is what is known as nurture, while there exists another theory of nature. In the preconceived notions about the origin of morality, I always believed that nurture leads the way for nature. In topics of politics and religion, my stand is that they are all introduced to the infant during the growing time by the people who take care of them. It is not natural to have a baby knowing what religion they are in when they are immediately born. Nurture was the way in which people learned culture that they are in after birth. In the wider theoretical concept, it was believed that "nurture" (learning and culture) was the source, and that "nature" (genetic inheritance) has no connection to the origin of morality. But, most people now agree that they both play a role in the source of morality. When Haidt says that "the brain is like a book," he means that the early development takes place when the person is still an infant and continues as they mature. There is also a third possibility, a "rationalism," where the children construct morality through their partaking with other kids that bring them the critical decisions to cause no harm to others hence a sense of justice.
2
According to the author, we are like dogs that communicate rationally via our experiences. Besides, our bodies are made in such a way that the emotions predict our reactions towards a stimulus. Haidt highlights that the brain is divided into sections that can come into contact with each other because of reasons such as emotions, intuitions, and reasoning. To illustrate this, he cites the works of great authors and philosophers such as Plato, Je'erson, and Hume. Plato puts his argument that the reasoning should be the master to all other psychological processes. Je’erson reinstated that the brain and the heart rule in a divided empire. Hume argued that reason is a little servant to passion. In this context, I am of the idea that the human mechanism is a complex one and the chemistry of our brain highly influences the way we arrive at our decisions. It is evident that the mind generates different options from the emotions that prompt us to make our decisions. Rationalism may be a major player, but the intuitive/emotional section is stronger than it. In an everyday scenario, the events that happen outside our bodies elicit emotions that make us respond to give results. During the response time, that is when we experience the duality of our brain as it brings us the options to choose from. The people we interact with influence how we act as well. We make decisions and judgments first and give reasoning to change the others, while at the same time, the reasons that others give can influence our intuition.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
3
In the fourth chapter, Haidt explores the function of our reputation and accountability to our behaviors as humans. He begins by explaining how being watched and questioned makes a person act morally. We constantly are sensitive to what others think about us, while we dismiss that we do not care. It is a sign that we want to hold high the reputation that we have and guard it with any way possible. I agree that when left alone, humans tend to act selfishly and unethically. I have experienced this in a project where there was a task of researching through questionnaires. On learning that no one was watching me, I filled in for the respondent without even carrying out the physical data collection. This was an unethical act as I did not know how the respondent would answer the questions. This is cheating. And as Haidt puts it, most people cheat. Working in groups makes us accountable, give and receive support from others. It is thus imperative to say that reason alone cannot make a person more morally upright when they are alone. Hence, our worship for a reason is flawed. Reasoning only gives us a leeway of getting a supporting evidence on what we want to believe while taking a contradicting evidence on what we do not want to think.
4
In chapter five, the author divides morality into a multi-entity and pluralism, which complicates the idea of a singular morality. In this case, Haidt describes that the morality structure is based on the three terms namely autonomy, community and divinity. The three divisions bring some sense to the whole idea of the existence of humans. First and foremost, a person being a separate functional entity in its own right is a clear picture of the autonomous nature of the society. The person makes and follows their decisions and reactions to events that cause the response. The existence of humans in the composite structures such as families, crews, and armies illustrate the community perspective of the society. Then there is the third distinction, divinity, where an individual is just a vessel in which a divine body exists. According to me, Haidt has summed up the complexity of the society, and the three distinctions bring about the whole summary. Society is indeed a complex system which is influenced by so many single components when these components function together to carry out a common goal. In a nutshell, the factors that Haidt has highlighted shape the society itself.
5
The diagram on chapter six (Fig. 6.2) gives the several tastes in which the morality of a person emanates from. He explains how the opposing ways in which we derive our moral module. In this chapter, the author likens the judgment on morality to a tongue with taste buds. Each taste bud has an opposing counter. For instance, we have both bitter and sweet taste buds. Thus when interpreting a small action in the society, we can come up with a “conflicting moral matrices from the same small set of foundations.” On the different “tastes,” the one that I rely on as a person is a care/harm. As a person, I feel sympathy for the people in need and who are suffering. I always feel like I am here to help them, and that everybody is entitled to happiness in their lives. This goes in the case of caring for our vulnerable children and family, with whom we are wired to help. Also, it holds true for the other victims, including other humans and animals. We all experience these taste buds to some degree, depending on where one is, their culture, and their overall moral foundations. Thus, it is imperative to say that they are all relevant to the same degree and everyone should put them in their minds to help us understand our morality and that of other people. They are all important, and their level of expression will depend on where one is. The reactions to a situation may trigger a disagreement between two people, and if this is the case, it could be because they are both using different taste buds.
6
In chapter eight, Haidt brings it out clear why conservatives have the upper hand when it comes to presidential elections. He says that the Republicans know how to deal with moral psychology, which the Democrats struggle with. It is apparently true that the Republicans use the moral foundations successfully. They base their campaigns on authority and loyalty. On the other hand, the Democrats only concentrate on the care/harm taste with the effect of feeling sympathetic to the people in the lower class who are suffering in the full view of the authority. The Conservatives are more successful in the sense that they see the national duty is more than just upholding social justice and caring for victims. It is true to say that the political systems depend on the moral intuitions of the people to sell their policies. The victims will buy to the policies of the Democrats while the middle class will draw their lines to the policies of the Republicans.
7
Haidt approaches the topic of religion in a wider perspective. The religious system has a duty and purpose in the society. Some of the purposes that are in mind are that it serves as the connection and cultural glue to the people of that faith. The other purpose is to create and enforce the norms and morals of the society in question. Also, religion serves as a system where the people find solace for the bad things that happen to them. Natural tragedies and phenomena such as death are difficult to discuss, and thus the religion creates a sense of having the answers to why they happen. All this is based on the experiences in my faith and community.
8
After reading The Righteous Mind, personally, I have come to understand what makes the society behave in a particular manner. It has made me a better person by allowing me to reflect on my choices and what influences my decisions. This book is a success in stripping down the truth about human moral reasoning and how it is related to politics and religion. Hence, the information gained from this book is helpful even beyond college as it would assist in self-identification and assessment of why people act in a particular manner. Thus, I would classify them accordingly.
References
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion . New York: Pantheon Books
