
This article reviews Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind, focusing on the question of morality's origins rather than the book's primary thesis about political division.
Haidt examines two traditional schools of thought on morality's source: the nativist view (innate) and the empiricist view (learned). He presents evidence supporting both:
He employs the metaphor of a "rider on an elephant," where reasoning serves our deeper human nature rather than controlling it.
Haidt argues morality arose through natural selection operating at two levels:
Individual selection favors selfishness, while group selection rewards cooperation and team loyalty. This dual pressure created humanity's mixed capacity for both self-interest and altruism.
Religion, he suggests, evolved to bind groups together through shared moral codes.
Richard Shweder identified three major moral frameworks:
Haidt proposes six foundational moral systems:

Liberals emphasize three (care, liberty, fairness-as-equality), while conservatives weight all six equally.
I question Haidt's conclusion that both political perspectives are equally valid. If morality evolved for survival, shouldn't more adaptive frameworks be superior? Societies becoming increasingly WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) may favor specific moral foundations over others.
Tarek Amr, March 30, 2018