The Righteous Mind
Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years, 11 months ago to Books
I just finished The Righteous Mind. I read it as part of my desire to understand "what's political partisanship all about". I obviously know what it's about if it's about a specific issue, but I believe there is something else going on where the same people who hated President W Bush's drone strikes like President Obama's. The same people who hated President Obama's comments about ignoring the law in favor of his view of what's right gush over President Trump doing the exact same thing.
The Righteous Mind actually provides some answers, although some of them I reject. Haidt takes a view decidedly contrary to Ayn Rand. If you want to read how critics of Ayn Rand are just morons who can't see the obvious, Haidt is not for you. Haidt says most of our reason is actually based on various moral foundations that are inherently tribal and groupish. Reason is mostly post hoc rationalization, he says. I completely agree with him that this is a human tendency, but I think it's one we're starting to overcome. My impression is Haidt thinks we should accept tribalism as inevitable and build our society around that fact; I don't see why when humans have overcome other behaviors.
I think Haidt is right on the money about partisanship being a form of groupishness.
He mentions something that was in one of the videos posted here of Dennis Prager debating some students. Prager says he sees humankind as flawed and needing a Leviathan to check human foibles, where as liberals see people as inherently good. I think Haidt and Prager are onto something there.
I had fun with it, even though I, and I suspect most Ayn Rand fans, will have a lot of disagreements with it.
I'm with Haidt in seeing groupishness as part of human nature. But he thinks human progress comes from expanding the group to entire nations or religions. That's intriguing to me because I do not know, but I see human progress as coming from individualism and maybe the anonymity that comes with urbanization, not from an expanded tribe/group.
The Righteous Mind actually provides some answers, although some of them I reject. Haidt takes a view decidedly contrary to Ayn Rand. If you want to read how critics of Ayn Rand are just morons who can't see the obvious, Haidt is not for you. Haidt says most of our reason is actually based on various moral foundations that are inherently tribal and groupish. Reason is mostly post hoc rationalization, he says. I completely agree with him that this is a human tendency, but I think it's one we're starting to overcome. My impression is Haidt thinks we should accept tribalism as inevitable and build our society around that fact; I don't see why when humans have overcome other behaviors.
I think Haidt is right on the money about partisanship being a form of groupishness.
He mentions something that was in one of the videos posted here of Dennis Prager debating some students. Prager says he sees humankind as flawed and needing a Leviathan to check human foibles, where as liberals see people as inherently good. I think Haidt and Prager are onto something there.
I had fun with it, even though I, and I suspect most Ayn Rand fans, will have a lot of disagreements with it.
I'm with Haidt in seeing groupishness as part of human nature. But he thinks human progress comes from expanding the group to entire nations or religions. That's intriguing to me because I do not know, but I see human progress as coming from individualism and maybe the anonymity that comes with urbanization, not from an expanded tribe/group.
Rubbish. Liberals who speak out publicly are completely biased against all people who disagree with them, and those liberals assume those that disagree are all bad.
Especially anyone who advocates the free market and individual liberty. (CG, you are the exception to that rule. You are a liberal who can see the advantages of free markets, but unfortunately, as a liberal, you agree to policies that thwart those goals in every case. Note that lots of people who claim to be conservatives agree to policies that destroy liberty and free markets. They are conservatives in name only.)
Since this book is about politicians, the pertinent comment should be about politicians.
Politicians today see people as cattle to feed upon. Liberal politicians are worse than true conservative politicians.
I can only think of one conservative politician in recent years, Ron Paul. So I group all the GOP politicians with all the Dem politicians as liberals who destroy liberty and free markets.
I haven't yet decided where to classify Donald Trump, but he's still in the liberal pile of dung until he lifts himself out though actions that kill off the unconstitutional government departments and liberate the people from the chains of the federal government.
During the Bush administration I watched and enjoyed Boston Legal (in spite of their liberal bias because it was so blatant.) But I wondered, "what are these writers going to do when a Dem does the same stupid things they are criticizing?"
Well, in spite of good ratings and Emmy nominations every year including the last, Boston Legal was cancelled at the end of the Bush era - they had nothing they could write about because Obama did the same things they skewered Bush for doing.
The liberals hid in the shadows instead of protesting because they are looting hypocrites without ethics, integrity, or rational philosophy.
Someone not following the news would think drone strikes on criminal suspects stopped when President Obama took office.
What stood out even more is mainstream Republicans condemning him and Democrats cheering him for reducing Medicare payments as part of PPACA. This only 15 years after Demcorats condemned Republicans for the exact same thing. They traded sides on the issue.
https://youtu.be/mOxl3HMQngU
I also think that Prager is as flawed as his liberal targets. That in particular was a singular insight from Ayn Rand, though shared by other small-l libertarians of the 1930s such as Rose Lane Wilder and Isabel Paterson. They saw fascism and communism as two expressions of the same premises.
You are right about the fact that supporters of Presdient Trump are motivated by moral indignation, rather than philiosophical principles. Notice the deafening silence in the Gulch on the question of tariffs.
It seems like human nature that we are capable of rising above to me. I think of it as occurring everywhere in human history.
"You are right about the fact that supporters of President Trump are motivated by moral indignation, rather than philiosophical principles."
I may be misunderstanding what you mean, but I'm saying vocal supporters or critics of any politician they are not involved with personally is motivated by groupishness, not morals or philosophy.
Sorry, again, but yes, I agree that morality and ethics are studies within philosophy. However, the sense of moral indignation is an emotion, nothing more. It is "hating the threat" i.e., standing at the bounds and yelling outward.