Philosphers have had a corner on morality for eons. But now, they need to make room for exerimental psychologists.
Jonathan Haidt is a philosophy major turned psychologist who never lost his taste for exploring the Big Questions.
He has some trail-blazing experimental research on the nature of morality, i.e., why people have a sense of right and wrong and what shapes it. That's the subject of his upcoming book, The Righteous Mind. And it shows up in his highly informative web site.
I refer to some of his more interesting findings in OtherWise. Many are particularly relevant to my exploration of the forces that seem to inexorably divide us.
One would think that a moral sense would make it harder to divide people. After all, nearly every culture and religion purports to embrace the Golden Rule as an ideal -- treat others as you would like them to treat you.
But as Haidt (pronounced "height") observes, morality too often "binds people together into teams that seek victory, not truth. It closes hearts and minds to opponents even as it makes cooperation and decency possible within groups.” It seems believing something is wrong carries a corollary obligation to demonize anyone who disagrees.
That's not an argument against morality. It's a plea that people who purport to follow high standards of morality reexamine their own behavior.
And it's a suggestion that anyone who truly wants to understand others must "respect and even learn from those whose morality differs from our own."
Comments