This review is too long – I indulged myself to serve my own purposes and it got soft in the middle. It is the longest I’ve written because for me this was highly consequential book. When I finished, I returned here to the top and now provide a bulleted summary. (this is only about half of what I could fit, so it ends abruptly).



• The last 200 years of moral philosophy has overlooked several key foundations for morality by largely focused on Utilitarianism, the idea that what does the most good fo

This review is too long – I indulged myself to serve my own purposes and it got soft in the middle. It is the longest I’ve written because for me this was highly consequential book. When I finished, I returned here to the top and now provide a bulleted summary. (this is only about half of what I could fit, so it ends abruptly).



• The last 200 years of moral philosophy has overlooked several key foundations for morality by largely focused on Utilitarianism, the idea that what does the most good for the most individuals, is the primary foundation for morality (justice)



• Most morality (what is “best”) is intuitive, driven by genes and “tastes”, not rational. Studies bear this out clearly, the rider (brain) rationalizes post hoc what the elephant (body) does intuitively



• The underpinnings of western civilization are espoused largely by a small segment of the world’s population, those that are WEIRD (western, educated, industrial, rich and democratic)



• WEIRD people (typically more liberal politically) have trouble understanding, even are repulsed, by the clannish, ritualized practices of groups (religious, political, cultural)



• Morality is largely dictated by inborn (ie genetic) “tastes”, evolved in individuals, which are multi-faceted (Care, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity)



• Conservatives appeal to a broader palette of tastes whereas liberals and libertarians greatly rely on Care/Harm and Fairness/Justice, respectively. This gives conservatives a political advantage.



• Groupish behavior is evolved (Darwin had this right) as well as individual human species, and largely explains their success. Data show groups reinforce themselves and reject others.



• Humans are 90% chimpanzee (individualist, competitive with each other) and 10% bee (work together for the wellbeing of the “hive”) – we are remarkably adept to switching quickly to protect the “hive” when it is in peril. (think 9/11 and now Covid19)



• Historically groups (religions, churches, political parties, nations, states, cities, counties etc) thrive when they have common “sacred” objects – totems which cannot be challenged (think faith) which allow them to better organize (think respect for authority) and eliminate free riders (those that take and do not give, this is why “welfare moms” resonates with the far right clan)



• Conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives – studies are clear.



• A better understanding of our political polarization requires an understanding of moral foundations (which “tastes” are appealing to one group vs another)



This will be a long review, as I want to capture my learnings in an organized way before my memory drifts and only the key takeaways remain (more on that). When I saw this book and read the subtitle, I knew it was the book for me, as I have dearly loved family and friends on the far ends of the political spectrum. I desperately want to wanted to understand those on the far right. Being center left myself, I understand the far left better, for better and worse. America needs to come together before we devolve into civil unrest. Written in 2012, this was before the unexpected Trump era and this book is even more relevant as it explains how he tapped into and exploits a particular mindset. The underlying ethos is less well understood by the left. Another aspect I liked was that the author is an academic, who admits his bias, but it never seems to color his analyses, which employ the proper scientific method to social psychology, for which he has a PhD. He has many years teaching and is highly credentialed. Being a scientist myself, I was thrilled to learn just how carefully designed his studies were to avoid reaching the wrong conclusions. My PhD is in a “hard” science, biochemistry, and I must admit my bias against “softer” disciplines was unfounded. I took a course in ethics in college and learned there just how hard it is to unpack morality. Once I tried to essay on the moral failings of suicide, and I agonized over that, finally concluding the body itself tries to not die – my evidence of a natural cause for morality (that was the best I could do). This book is a real landmark, I think, and I will love to read Haidt’s thoughts in the future in the post Trump era.



The “pure reason” basis for morality proposed by Plato and the ancients was tossed on its head by David Hume, the 18th century Scottish philosopher, who argued that it is the “passions” that are really driving. Haidt accepts this and uses the Elephant (intuition, or passion) as a metaphor and the Rider (the head, trying to steer through reasoning). The elephant is the powerful entity reacting to perceived threats, real on imagined. Haidt and his students demonstrated over and over that most moral reasoning operates this way in humans, where they justify their moral beliefs with reasoning, after they’ve already decided what is right. Where Haidt differs from Hume is he shows that it is not “experience” that informs this intuition alone, in fact much of it is innate (i.e. genetic). Again, Haidt demonstrates this with scientific methods and his studies bear this out. This has been my experience as well, as in college when I tried to justify my emotional repulsion for suicide with logic. Haidt says “Our moral thinking is much more like a politician searching for votes than a scientist searching for the truth” (p. 89). The author goes further, where his studies have concluded that “…we care more about looking good than truly being good. Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. We lie, cheat, and cut ethical corners quite often when we think we can get away with it, and then we use our moral thinking to manage our reputations and justify ourselves to others. We believe our own post hoc reasoning so thoroughly that we end up self-righteously convinced of our own virtue.” (p. 220). But lest you think he is devolving to pure cynicism; he argues later that this serves a vital moral function.



The author explains why the world doesn’t see America the way we do. He introduced me to the acronym WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic). Most people like this (myself included) just don’t get how tiny a minority we are, yet we control most of the resources and this informs much of our morality. These people (liberal, by and large, as the term is used in the US) are obsessed with the utilitarianism introduced by John Stuart Mill, the highly influential 19th century British philosopher whose ideas underwrite provide the foundation for liberal democracy. What we see in America today, to some extent, in the populist tendency, is a departure away from the “educated and rich” aspects of WEIRD. Our drift from egalitarianism (through global economics) has left behind these people, and that’s how Trump gathered them in by promising a return of distribution of riches to them (this hasn’t happened, by most accounts, but more on tribalism to come). Haidt shows that student’s natural intuition for disgust is more likely to be put aside by educated college students when the overall good is served (he uses humorous disgusting cases that WEIRD participants find acceptable because no one is harmed – e.g. eating an animal that the owner previously defiled in ways I won’t name here). He will expound that libertarian morality is disproportionately informed by Mill’s idea that the policy which does the least harm to the most people (liberty/oppression) trumps most others.



Haidt credits Hume with getting something else right, that there are “tastes” for morality that cannot be explained by rational moral reasoning. “Moral judgment is a kind of perception, and moral science should begin with a careful study of the moral taste receptors (p. 135). He believes modern science has since vindicated Hume on this idea: “You would think, then, that in the decades after his death, the moral sciences progressed rapidly. But you would be wrong. In the decades after Hume’s death the rationalists claimed victory over religion and took the moral sciences off on a two-hundred-year tangent.” (p. 135). A rather audacious claim? Haidt makes his case that the rationalists on morality got it mostly wrong, and the elephant is actually in control of the rider. He has data to back it up.



Hume’s “taste” receptors for morality are largely inborn. Haidt’s approach is to study morality by how the mind “actually” works, as opposed to how it “ought” to work. That is the basic thesis of his study. He argues that Immanuel Kant, the 18th century German philosopher, got it wrong when he only focused on justice. He likens it to a restaurant with only one item no the menu, insufficient for the full palate of moral taste sensors. There are five such moral foundations, Care, fairness, loyalty, authority and sanctity. Kant (and Kohlberg’s error) according to the author is that he focused only on the fairness foundation to the exclusion of the others. And here’s where it gets interesting, Haidt studied these 5 aspects on hundreds of subjects and found that the very liberal over-value Care and Fairness whereas the very conservative value all of them more or less equally. As a political scientist, this imparts and advantage to conservative politicians who can appeal to a broader palate of tastes.



The study of group behavior is a key to understanding morality – Haidt likens the college football scene at the University of Virginia to a political rally or religious service, where loyalty to team and flag waving create a collective hysteria that takes on a life of its own. His study of other cultures shows how pervasive this practice has been in the history of mankind. As a liberal, you might find this slavish devotion repugnant (I must admit I often too, but on occasion have felt the power and protection and ecstasy when in the bosom of my group – e.g. musical events where the likeminded devotees are united as one). Why do humans do this? One reason is it requires adherence to the group codes, and punishes nonadherents and “free riders” - those who do not contribute to the group but only take.



The value of group behavior has been studied in the animal kingdom, and Haidt claims that is what humans are spectacular at, and they accomplish much more than a group of individuals. This explains why the right in American politics are terrified by a lack of hierarchy and structure, and the very idea of communism or socialism conjures up thoughts of a disorganized horde of selfish individuals. Of course, this is not what Marxist theory says, but the point is that individualism (universal fairness) from the left is so directly opposed to the this tribal, or group mentality. Haidt credits Darwin and later Durkheim for figuring out how humans adapted these to advance technologically – he argues the data is clear that civilizations that did this led to more stable and successful organizations. In other words, loyalty to group (kin, religion, tribe, etc…) is morally superior in this aspect in that it leads to greater success and happiness for the group.



To explain what makes humans so groupish, Haidt argues it happened over a relatively short period of time in history and through natural selection. And it is innate – he cited a Russian study where within 10 generations an animal breeder, by breeding the least fearful and social individuals, created an entire population of docile foxes. Another study by Muir in the 1980s where groups of 12 hens in cages were studied to see which laid the most eggs. What he found was that the best layers were also less aggressive and healthy. By successive breeding he created a brood where the mortality was 8% compared to 67% in the original group (yes chickens are vicious). He argues that it is the same in humans, where group loyalty is valued thrive. Therefore, loyalty is a virtue, a higher moral state. New DNA evidence shows that, contrary to Stephen Jay Gould’s claim, human genomes evolved massively over the last 50,000 years, leading us the most successful species on earth. (one can argue that our planetary conquest has passed its zenith).



One of the more interesting sections included the claim that we are “90% chimpanzee and 10% bee”. Most of the time we are like chimps where individuals compete for dominance and the goodies. But we have an innate switch where we go into hive mode, like bees, forgetting our selfishness and work together, become hyper social, to protect the hive from threat or competition from other groups. Who can deny the way Americans came together once the planes crashed into the towers on 9/11. Suddenly our selfishness vanished and former enemies joined arms against a common good. Haidt argues this was a critical social adaption to illustrate the value of patriotism as a moral virtue. In the west we often romanticize the lone hero, struggling alone against the horde. But this is alien to other cultures, where admittance to the group and destruction of the self is seen as a higher good. Self-abnegation is a ritual in most non-western cultures, where puberty rites are designed to purge the selfish inclinations for acceptance into the “hive” of adulthood, where new obligations are required. Often hallucinogens are used to erase the self, and the experience of peyote and mescaline and LSD takers often leads to a (sometimes permanent) release from the prison of “self” into a state of joyous community with the “one” (that being, the group, the universal state of man). Experimental studies with Americans in placebo blinded trials show that this drug often has this positive effect, sometimes permanent (some people say the experience was life changing). I say all this to show that the rationalist, individualist moral reasoning for fairness traditionally espoused by western philosophers does n’t begin to capture the moral foundation of loyalty. Finally, Haidt shows it may be biochemical – studies where game players were given oxytocin made less selfish decisions – however only with their team – to other teams they were aggressively competitive!



Religions are perhaps the most tightly cohered group type – where adherence to code is strictly enforced and the “free rider” problem can be aggressively managed. Personally, I have always found this drives me away from such organizations as I discerned from young age that the disparity of such structures and the actual teachings of Jesus. I have since come to realize the schisms in Christianity have been ongoing for 2000+ years. Perhaps that is why I lean left, I have always thought of the “fellowship of man” to be global (all 8 billion of us) and