Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: why moral reasoning is a press secretary, not a judge, and what six moral foundations explain about political conflict.
Had to search for this one since you specifically referenced it… lots of information here, like your breakdown a lot however I had to argue with Haidt’s original study going only from your article not having read The Righteous Mind. My argument for the original one is: more along the lines are they having sex just for the fun of it? And just one time as an experiment, I guess my argument is over sex is never just sex. So if we are meant to have a trust in place that I can talk to my brother without being objectified or wondering if there are motives in place to get me into bed, then how does this situation change that?
But I get it if I’m missing “the plot” because I do believe in the premise that we are more concerned with “looking” to be righteous.
And what’s interesting is that subconscious could be the elephant but we are also dealing with the reptilian physiological system so isn’t it a bit more complex because didn’t reasoning help us evolve ? if you read any Charles Baxter you may begin to believe that in the subconscious mind ( that’s where the god shots are, and that’s that intuition…i think that’s what you are getting at, but when we think of eat, sleep, sex, security being part of the reptilian brain it begs the thought that maybe it’s not just system 1 or system 2. 🤗
Your objection is better than the one Haidt answers, and I think you are partly right.
His reply is that realism does not matter, because the finding is about what people say once their stated reasons are removed. But you are making a stronger claim: that the intuition tracks a harm the stipulation cannot actually remove.
If sex is never just sex, no-harm was never on the table and the condemnation is not unreasoned.
That does not rescue the reasoning though. People still could not say why.
And Haidt agrees reasoning evolved. His claim is that it evolved for persuasion rather than for truth.
Had to search for this one since you specifically referenced it… lots of information here, like your breakdown a lot however I had to argue with Haidt’s original study going only from your article not having read The Righteous Mind. My argument for the original one is: more along the lines are they having sex just for the fun of it? And just one time as an experiment, I guess my argument is over sex is never just sex. So if we are meant to have a trust in place that I can talk to my brother without being objectified or wondering if there are motives in place to get me into bed, then how does this situation change that?
But I get it if I’m missing “the plot” because I do believe in the premise that we are more concerned with “looking” to be righteous.
And what’s interesting is that subconscious could be the elephant but we are also dealing with the reptilian physiological system so isn’t it a bit more complex because didn’t reasoning help us evolve ? if you read any Charles Baxter you may begin to believe that in the subconscious mind ( that’s where the god shots are, and that’s that intuition…i think that’s what you are getting at, but when we think of eat, sleep, sex, security being part of the reptilian brain it begs the thought that maybe it’s not just system 1 or system 2. 🤗
Your objection is better than the one Haidt answers, and I think you are partly right.
His reply is that realism does not matter, because the finding is about what people say once their stated reasons are removed. But you are making a stronger claim: that the intuition tracks a harm the stipulation cannot actually remove.
If sex is never just sex, no-harm was never on the table and the condemnation is not unreasoned.
That does not rescue the reasoning though. People still could not say why.
And Haidt agrees reasoning evolved. His claim is that it evolved for persuasion rather than for truth.