THE RIGHTEOUS MIND - SUMMARY OF MAIN POINTS

Chapter 1

There are three possible origins of morality - nativism, empiricism and rationalism. The moral domain differs
with each culture - that of Western, educated and individualistic societies is unusually narrow. In the
majority of cultures the moral domain encompasses and regulates many more aspects of life. People
sometimes have gut feelings that drive reasoning - moral reasoning is better seen as a ‘post hoc’ fabrication.
From these two ideas it becomes difficult to accept the rationalist idea that morality is entirely self-
constructed by children based on an understanding of harm. Therefore cultural learning and guidance must
play a larger role. So a combination of nativism and empiricism seems more likely.

Chapter 2

Outline of the rider and the elephant model of moral judgements. The elephant represents our gut
feeling/intuitions we feel when encountering moral dilemmas. The rider represents our faculty of reason
which attempts to justify why the elephant has certain desires and inclinations. Crucially, the rider has
evolved to serve the elephant, similar to how David Hume mentioned that reason is the servant of the
passions. Therefore, to change someone’s mind, you must speak to the elephant, not the rider. Antonio
Damasio study on patients with damage to the vmPFC; emotionality dropped to zero, consequently made
poor life choices.

Chapter 3

Brains evaluate instantly and constantly. Social and political judgements depend heavily on quick intuitive
flashes (eg. with Todorov’s work on word association for conservatives vs liberals). Our bodily states
sometimes influence our moral judgements; bad smells and tastes can make people more judgemental.
Psychopaths reason but do not feel, babies feel but do not reason. The former are severely deficient morally
whereas even infants have the groundwork for morality.

Chapter 4

Tetlock’s research reveals that conscious reasoning is carried out largely for the purpose of persuasion, rather
than truth-finding. Our reasoning most frequently is confirmatory, rather than exploratory thought.
Confirmation bias is evident in asking people to find the rule in an ascending sequence of numbers -
participants good at generating new rules for the series of numbers, failed to test and contradict their own
hypothesis. People have an inherent desire to protect and avoid damaging their beliefs. This supports the
overall sentiment that intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.

Chapter 5

People have a tendency to only view morality from within the WEIRD (Western, educated, industrial, rich
and democratic) mentality. This group usually only revolves around the ethic of autonomy, even though most
other cultures contain ethics of community and divinity. The author visited India, managed to understand
their unique moral matrix. He could see ‘the beauty in a moral code that emphasised self-control, resistance
to temptation, cultivation of one’s higher, nobler self, and negation of the self’s desires.’. The ethic of
divinity lets us give voice to inchoate feelings of elevation and degradation - gives us a way to condemn
crass consumerism and mindless sexuality that would not be possible with the ethic of autonomy.

Chapter 6

There’s more to morality than harm and fairness. Moral pluralism allows us to explain moral diversity
within and across cultures; moral monism such as Bentham’s (who was likely autistic and thus a high
systemiser) utilitarianism leads to societies unsatisfying to many and risk being inhumane since they are
grounded on only one principle and ignore many others. Haidt proposes the Moral Foundations Theory
detailing how five/six innate systems form the foundations of ‘intuitive ethics’ upon which all societies base
their morals, being: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation
and (liberty/oppression).

Chapter 7

The care/harm foundation evolved in response to the adaptive challenge of caring for vulnerable children;
makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need. The fairness/cheating foundation can be explained in
relation to Robert Triver’s theory of reciprocal altruism, where humans could remember interactions with
others and cooperate with those who have been nice to us. This fairness more implies equality on the left, but
on the right refers to proportionality (even if that leads to unequal outcomes). The loyalty/betrayal
foundation results from a desire to form and maintain coalitions that can fend off rival groups, which can
also be observed in chimpanzee behaviour. The authority/subversion foundation is due to a need for leaders
to take on a socially beneficial role of control and maintaining order. Therefore triggers for this foundation
include anything that is seen to rebel against legitimate authority and therefore cause instability. The
sanctity/degradation foundation evolved in response to the challenge of living in a world of pathogens and
parasites. Allows us to imbue objects with sacredness which are important for binding groups together.

Chapter 8

Studies/Research cited in the book of interest

• reciprocal altruism Robert Trivers

• 1954 Robbers Cave Experiment by Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Wood Sherif
• “What makes people vote Republican?” Jonathan Haidt on Emile Durkheim