Haidt's is a “descriptive approach based on anthropological and psychological data” that is pertinent to a description of the various systems employed across the society. The danger of extrapolating from such inclusivity is that the definition of what one is studying becomes subject to dictation by study subjects rather than following a recognized definition. Remember that the best way for an academic to be noticed is for him or her to produce a new idea, even if the newness is merely achieved by expanding definitions to include parameters better included in separate definitions.
Haidt himself states the harm and justice parameters are the classically accepted parameters for defining morality within most studies of moral philosophy. Haidt is actually describing the sort of emotional disgust reaction that PZ Myers addressed in Who's morally pernicious?, and which Haidt himself describes as generating reactions that the emoter cannot justify within a post hoc moral explanation.
Haidt is actually describing the emotional reactions that are emphasized by individuals within his study groups. Haidt himself emphasizes that loyalty/in-group/purity are primarily conservative values.
I am not saying that liberals do not place any value on these things. However, I am saying that emphasizing these values does not necessarily guarantee moral behavior (by the classical definition). Some in-group authority figures who emphasize purity have not emphasized and are not emphasizing moral behavior. No need to mention the obvious examples of misuse of authority to promote personal ambitions by appealing to human emotions.
Liberal thinkers tend to look at the value of what is being promoted rather than paying excessive heed to who is promoting it. Such excessive reverence for in-group hype has been repeatedly demonstrated to be dangerous or potentially dangerous down through history.
More discussion surrounding the gross misrepresentations of atheist arguments and arguments for appeasement by atheistic scientists is to be found here in response to Mary Midgley argues that opponents of intelligent design are driving people to accept it. In response to Midgley's preposterous contention that, "scientific atheism and Darwinism which are pernicious moral doctrines", PZ Myers provides an amusing argument from ridicule.
Mary Midgley appears not to have read Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and yet has critiqued things that Dawkins never said in the first place.
1. I have never said that there are no positions available except for my own and creatonism. 2. I have frequently said that natural selection is NOT the only source of evolution. I have written enthusiastically about Kimura's neutral theory of evolution. 3. I have frequently emphasized that natural selection favours cooperation and 'using something that others are not'. 4. I have repeatedly repudiated the worship of Thatcherite competition. 5. I have never said that religion MAKES people do appalling things, only that it frequently IS used to justify doing appalling things, just as ideologies such as Marxism are. 6. Far from being angry with anyone who says there are mysteries, I frequently and passionately invoke mystery as an inspiration for science, and I frequently state that science cannot answer some questions.
Haidt’s description of moral psychology blurs the distinction between personal emotionality and moral philosophy. Haidt dismisses rational moral systems as too slow, in comparison to gut reactions, to determine behaviour: “Reasoning by its very nature is slow, playing out in seconds.”
Haidt appears to be conveniently ignoring the fact that seconds rank as fast enough to override emotional responses so that our behaviour can be governed by our cognition rather than by every passing emotion. Most people regard this ability as associated with socialization, emotional maturity, and self-control.
Haidt’s description of studies performed for his dissertation demonstrate self-fulfilling experimental bias: “I told people short stories in which a person does something disgusting or disrespectful that was perfectly harmless (for example, a family cooks and eats its dog, after the dog was killed by a car). I was trying to pit the emotion of disgust against reasoning about harm and individual rights.” Needless to say, Haidt found what he was looking for: “I found that disgust won in nearly all groups I studied.”
We Westerners are accustomed to viewing dogs as beloved pets and would react with disgust to this story—after all, the story was designed to disgust. Substitute “pig” or “lamb” for “dog” and the semi-cannibalistic element of the moral story diminishes considerably. In Asia, dogs are considered a food group, so I’d predict that Vietnamese Americans might not have reacted with disgust to this practical, harm-no-animal, meal. In essence, emotive reactions are culturally governed and even though emotion might kick in more quickly than cognitive assessment of this story, the cognition— that dogs are family members—was established by custom before the aversive reaction could occur.
Haidt classifies the criteria for assessing morality: the classically recognized parameters of harm/care and fairness/justice, plus Haidt’s s proposed additional parameter of ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity.
The inclusion of these additional parameters, which seem to govern conservative moralizing attitudes, lead Haidt to the mistaken conclusion that morality is equated with religion. Yes, the Abrahamic religious systems include moralistic rules, and, yes, the Abrahamic religions have flourished by emphasizing community, but this does not mean that religion is the only route to moral behaviour or community involvement.
Conservative insistence on giving primacy to the moral codes of ancient Israel too often runs counter to harm/care and fairness/justice to truly represent moral attitudes. Too often, conservatives clearly act solely under the dictates of emotional reactivity or inculcated absolutes without any regard for potential harm or injustice. Even Haidt would probably not argue that killing others in the name of fundamentalist religious dogma hardly qualifies as moral behavior. Loyalty, respect, and sanctity are not necessarily good guides to moral behavior because those who claim to have moral authority may be manipulating believers to serve the claimants personal economic or political ends.
Haidt focuses on the group survival advantage of religious belief to criticize Dawkins’ New Atheist position. I have not yet read Dawkins, but PZ Myers states that Dawkins did not summarily dismiss group selection, as Haidt would have us believe. I shall have to read Dawkins and judge for myself. Regardless of what Dawkins actually said, it strikes me that in large, post-agricultural societies religion probably best served rulers and priests rather than the society’s individuals. Some South American religious superstitions, which involved ever increasing human sacrifice during times of stress, could hardly be said to have ensured group survival.
Video : Haidt's presentation at Enlightenment 2.0, where he explains his research into moral thinking and makes a good argument as to why liberals need to borrow the conservative lesson regarding in-group solidarity to defeat the enemy,
atheism
morality
religion
philosophy
psychology
sociology
PZ Myers
apologetics
Christianity
creationism
intelligent design
science
Richard Dawkins
jonathan haidt