The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, written by Jonathan Haidt, was published in 2012 by Pantheon Books. With its 419 pages of deep reflection and scientific argument, the book dives headfirst into one of the most pressing questions of modern society: why do morally decent people become politically polarized?
Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist with a PhD from the University of Pennsylvania, has served as a professor at New York University’s Stern School of Business. He is known for his extensive research in moral psychology, political psychology, and cultural evolution. In this work, he doesn’t just observe moral behavior—he asks us to rethink our own assumptions about right and wrong, with compelling clarity and psychological evidence.
Categorized under social and evolutionary psychology, this book stands at the intersection of science, politics, and moral philosophy.
Haidt brings to it decades of research in moral foundations theory, as well as his broader framework of social intuitionism, which suggests that moral reasoning is often a post-hoc justification of intuitive responses.
His argument strikes a balance between scientific rigor and philosophical insight, making this book not only a psychological inquiry but a bridge across the ideological chasm dividing society today.
The fact that this book has been cited by journalists, educators, and political thinkers alike—appearing on The New York Times Best Seller list—speaks volumes about its relevance and impact. It has become a key reference point for those attempting to decode the polarization of politics and religion in the 21st century.
At the heart of The Righteous Mind lies one provocative thesis: “Intuition comes first, strategic reasoning second.”
In other words, most of our moral judgments arise from gut feelings, not logical deductions. Reason, as Haidt argues, is more often used to defend our intuitions than to arrive at them. We are not the rational actors we like to imagine—we are storytelling machines justifying our instinctive moral responses.
Building upon this, Haidt introduces Moral Foundations Theory, which posits that human morality is built upon six universal moral dimensions: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression.
The central dilemma Haidt explores is this: how can societies survive and thrive when people’s moral matrices are so radically different?
Table of Contents
Background
To fully appreciate The Righteous Mind, it’s important to understand the scientific and philosophical context in which it was written.
Haidt’s academic journey began with the study of disgust and morality, which led him to realize that moral reasoning was not a purely rational process. Rather, as he later articulated through his Social Intuitionist Model, morality is mostly driven by automatic intuitive responses. He compares moral reasoning to a person riding an elephant: the elephant is our intuition, large and powerful, and the rider (reason) merely justifies the direction the elephant chooses to go.
Throughout The Righteous Mind, Haidt engages with key thinkers such as David Hume, who believed that “reason is the servant of the passions”, and E.O. Wilson, who advocated for a biological basis of social behavior. In this context, Haidt’s work can be seen as part of a larger intellectual trend that seeks to understand morality not just as a philosophical abstraction but as a biological and cultural phenomenon.
In response to the increasing ideological divides, especially in the U.S., Haidt sought to provide a neutral lens to examine both liberal and conservative values. As he writes early in The Righteous Mind:
“If you think that half of America is suffering from a psychological disorder, then you’ve been blinded by the moral certainty that animates your moral matrix.”
Rather than demonizing the “other side,” Haidt wants readers to understand the evolutionary roots of morality, how group dynamics shape moral systems, and how these systems can coexist—even when in conflict.
Summary
The Righteous Mind is divided into three parts, each of which builds upon the other to create a comprehensive framework for understanding human morality and the political and religious divides that shape modern society.
In these sections, Haidt explores moral intuition, moral foundations, and how group identity leads to both cooperation and division. The core message throughout is that our moral and political divisions are deeply ingrained and yet, through understanding, we can begin to appreciate perspectives that differ from our own.
Part I: Intuitions Come First, Strategic Reasoning Second
Haidt opens by confronting the rationalist tradition in moral philosophy. For centuries, philosophers have argued that moral reasoning is the key to moral judgment. Haidt, however, challenges this view by introducing his concept of Social Intuitionism.
Where Does Morality Come From?
In the first chapter, Haidt poses a simple but powerful question: Where does morality come from?
He suggests that morality arises not from deliberate, logical reasoning but from automatic, intuitive judgments. To demonstrate this, he presents a series of examples, such as the story of a family that eats their dog after it’s hit by a car. While some readers may feel disgusted, Haidt suggests that their moral judgments are influenced more by their intuitions than by any logical reasoning.
Intuition governs the vast majority of our moral decisions, with reasoning often serving as a post hoc justification for those decisions.
Haidt further illustrates this with the Elephant and Rider metaphor. The Elephant represents our intuition—large, automatic, and emotional—while the Rider represents the rational mind, which justifies the elephant’s actions after the fact. Haidt argues that the rational mind often acts more like a lawyer, finding ways to defend the decisions made by our intuitions, rather than being the judge that makes objective decisions.
Elephants Rule
The second chapter builds on this idea, presenting a series of studies in which moral judgments are made almost instantaneously, without any conscious reasoning. Haidt’s research shows that people make decisions about what is right and wrong before they even have a chance to engage in rational thought. He uses experiments showing that moral intuitions often clash with reasoning, and that people’s attitudes are more influenced by their emotions than by facts or logic.
Haidt concludes that reason is largely a tool for defending our moral intuitions, not for discovering objective truth.
Vote for Me (Here’s Why)
In this chapter, Haidt discusses the use of strategic reasoning in politics. He argues that most political decisions are driven by moral intuitions about right and wrong, with individuals and politicians using reasoning to justify their moral beliefs. Politics, Haidt suggests, is less about the rational evaluation of policy and more about people identifying with moral teams that reinforce their beliefs.
Haidt uses the example of American political polarization, where people on both sides of the political spectrum justify their beliefs using moral reasoning that aligns with their group’s values.
Part II: There’s More to Morality Than Harm and Fairness
After establishing that moral intuitions guide much of our behavior, Haidt moves on to Moral Foundations Theory. This theory proposes that morality is not just about harm and fairness but also about a variety of other moral dimensions that are deeply ingrained in human nature.
Beyond WEIRD Morality
In this section, Haidt introduces the concept of WEIRD morality—a term he uses to describe the moral systems of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic societies. He suggests that the moral systems of WEIRD societies, particularly in the United States, have become overly focused on two moral dimensions: harm and fairness. In contrast, other cultures place emphasis on additional moral dimensions, such as loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty.
Taste Buds of the Righteous Mind
Haidt compares moral foundations to taste buds, suggesting that just as we have multiple ways to experience taste, people have multiple ways of experiencing morality. The six moral foundations Haidt identifies are:
- Care/Harm: Concern for the suffering of others and the desire to prevent harm.
- Fairness/Cheating: The desire for justice, equality, and proportionality.
- Loyalty/Betrayal: The bond people feel to their groups and the importance of loyalty.
- Authority/Subversion: The respect for tradition, hierarchy, and leadership.
- Sanctity/Degradation: The reverence for the sacred and avoidance of contamination.
- Liberty/Oppression: Concern for freedom and the fear of tyranny.
According to Haidt, liberals tend to focus mainly on the care and fairness dimensions, while conservatives draw on all six of these moral foundations, including loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty. This difference, Haidt argues, is a key factor in the political divide. Conservatives often appeal to a broader range of moral concerns, while liberals tend to prioritize issues related to harm prevention and justice.
The Moral Foundations of Politics
Haidt then applies Moral Foundations Theory to American politics. He suggests that liberals and conservatives are simply drawing upon different moral foundations when they debate issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, and immigration.
Liberals often focus on issues of fairness and harm, while conservatives balance concerns about harm with loyalty, authority, and sanctity. Haidt uses surveys and data to show that people with conservative values tend to be more morally balanced, drawing from a wider array of moral concerns, whereas liberals are more likely to focus exclusively on harm and fairness. This helps explain why political arguments are often so polarized—liberals and conservatives are not just disagreeing on policies, but on the moral frameworks that guide their beliefs.
The Conservative Advantage
In this chapter, Haidt argues that conservatives have a built-in advantage in politics because they appeal to a broader spectrum of moral concerns. Since they draw upon loyalty, authority, and sanctity, they can motivate more people on issues related to national identity, tradition, and cultural values.
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to focus mainly on issues related to care and fairness, which limits their appeal to a more narrow group of people. Haidt suggests that this difference in moral outlook helps explain the political success of conservative movements around the world.
Part III: Morality Binds and Blinds
The final section of The Righteous Mind examines how morality binds people together and creates group identity, but also how it can blind us to alternative viewpoints.
Why Are We So Groupish?
Haidt explores how morality acts as a social glue that binds people together in groups. From small tribal societies to modern nations, humans have always created moral communities that are held together by shared moral codes. This groupish tendency, Haidt suggests, is essential for cooperation, but it also leads to tribalism—the tendency to see one’s own group as morally superior to others.
The process of binding creates unity within groups, but it also leads to blindness to the perspectives of other groups.
The Hive Switch
Haidt uses the metaphor of the hive switch to describe the transition from selfishness to groupishness. Humans have the ability to shift from being like chimps, who act in their own self-interest, to being like bees, who work for the good of the colony.
This shift happens when individuals adopt a sense of group identity and see themselves as part of something larger than themselves. Haidt uses historical examples, such as wartime solidarity and religious communities, to show how this hive switch can lead to acts of extraordinary cooperation, but also to acts of violence and war when groups become too rigid and intolerant.
Religion Is a Team Sport
Haidt concludes this section by discussing the role of religion in creating moral communities. Religion, Haidt argues, is not just about personal spirituality or beliefs—it is also about binding people together in cohesive groups.
Religion helps create moral communities that define what is right and wrong, and these communities can foster both altruism and violence. Haidt uses examples from different religions to show how they can both elevate individuals to higher moral states and divide them from others who do not share their beliefs.
Can’t We All Disagree More Constructively?
In the final chapter, Haidt calls for greater understanding and civil discourse between liberals and conservatives. He encourages people to engage in conversations where they try to empathize with the moral foundations of others, rather than just defending their own positions.
Haidt’s central message is that understanding the moral psychology behind political and religious divides is the first step toward reducing the anger and polarization that currently plagues society.
Critical Analysis
Evaluation of Content
Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind offers an insightful, comprehensive, and scientifically grounded exploration of why good people are divided by politics and religion.
His main argument—that moral intuitions guide our decisions and reasoning often follows to justify these intuitions—provides an interesting contrast to the traditional view of reason as the primary driver of moral judgment.
This perspective aligns with a growing body of research in social psychology and evolutionary theory that places human behavior in the realm of emotional intelligence rather than cold logic.
Haidt’s Social Intuitionism theory is especially compelling in how it challenges the classical notion that reasoning is the dominant force behind moral decision-making. Rather than being rational agents who make decisions based on careful deliberation, humans are intuitive creatures, responding quickly to situations based on gut feelings or unconscious moral frameworks, which are often later justified by reasoning.
This viewpoint is supported by an increasing amount of empirical research in neuroscience and psychology that demonstrates how emotions often precede logical thought.
Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory, which posits that there are six universal moral dimensions (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, and liberty), also provides a solid foundation for understanding political and social divides.
His analysis of how liberals and conservatives differ in their moral matrices, with liberals focusing primarily on care and fairness, and conservatives integrating all six foundations, offers a fresh perspective on why political divisions run so deep. The theory draws from evolutionary psychology, suggesting that these moral foundations evolved to help humans live in cooperative groups, and thus explains why these foundations often drive our political and social allegiances.
However, Haidt’s theory also invites criticism. While it does an excellent job of explaining the origins of political and moral divisions, it occasionally seems to oversimplify the complexity of modern political systems and movements.
For example, The Righteous Mind suggests that conservatives have a built-in advantage in politics because they appeal to a broader range of moral concerns. While this may be true in certain contexts, it doesn’t fully take into account the economic, historical, and cultural factors that influence political allegiances. Political issues such as economic inequality, corporate power, and globalization play significant roles in political divisions, but these are not deeply examined in Haidt’s moral framework.
Additionally, Haidt emphasizes the moral value of group loyalty and tribalism, yet the same group dynamics that Haidt celebrates as a source of social cohesion can also be a source of division and violence.
His theory could delve deeper into how these group-based moral intuitions—while often fostering cooperation—can also lead to exclusionary politics, ethnocentrism, and even violent extremism. This dual nature of groupish morality is touched upon in the book but could be explored further, especially in the context of contemporary global conflicts.
Overall, Haidt’s book is well-researched and supported by a robust array of interdisciplinary references, from neuroscience to anthropology. His clear writing style and engaging metaphors make the complex ideas accessible to a wide audience, without oversimplifying the subject matter.
However, some critics may argue that Haidt’s work doesn’t fully explore the darker sides of human nature, particularly the ways in which our moral intuitions can contribute to in-group aggression or societal breakdown.
Style and Accessibility
One of Haidt’s greatest strengths is his ability to communicate complex scientific concepts in a way that is both engaging and accessible to a broad audience. Throughout The Righteous Mind, Haidt uses relatable metaphors—such as the elephant and rider, taste buds of the righteous mind, and hive switch—to explain difficult ideas in a way that makes them easy to grasp. He also weaves in personal anecdotes and case studies to illustrate his points, keeping the reader’s attention while grounding his arguments in real-world examples.
The structure of The Righteous Mind is clear and logical, moving from the basic theory of moral psychology to its implications in politics and religion. Haidt’s writing is not bogged down by technical jargon, making it accessible even to readers without a background in psychology or philosophy.
In fact, The Righteous Mind can be enjoyed by anyone interested in human behavior, political philosophy, or religious studies.
However, one potential downside is that Haidt’s explanations of his theories can sometimes feel repetitive. He revisits the same arguments across different chapters, which may frustrate readers seeking a more streamlined argument. While repetition is useful for reinforcing key concepts, some sections could have been condensed or clarified further to avoid redundancy.
Themes and Relevance
Haidt’s exploration of moral psychology is particularly relevant in today’s polarized political climate, where understanding the moral foundations of opposing ideologies can lead to more constructive discourse.
By showing that people on opposite sides of political and social debates are often guided by different moral foundations, Haidt opens up a new way of thinking about how to bridge the divides that currently plague society.
The Righteous Mind also has significant relevance in the realm of political psychology, where Haidt’s work adds nuance to our understanding of tribalism and moral polarization. His theories can help explain why, for example, political discussions often devolve into moral arguments, where each side sees the other as not just wrong, but as morally inferior. Haidt’s call for greater empathy and understanding across political and religious divides is timely, as we grapple with increasing social and political fragmentation worldwide.
Moreover, Haidt’s insights into religion—particularly his argument that religious morality can be a force for both unity and division—provide an important perspective in the broader debate about the role of religion in modern societies. His view that religion acts as a moral glue for societies while simultaneously creating us vs. them dynamics offers a fresh take on the often contentious relationship between religion and politics.
Author’s Authority
Jonathan Haidt is a credible and authoritative figure in the field of moral psychology, with his academic background and extensive research into social behavior lending credibility to his claims.
His work has been widely cited by psychologists, political scientists, and philosophers alike, which attests to the influence of his theories. Haidt’s ability to draw from diverse disciplines—including neuroscience, evolutionary theory, cultural anthropology, and philosophy—adds depth and rigor to his work.
However, while Haidt’s expertise in moral psychology is unquestionable, some critics argue that his work could benefit from a more comprehensive examination of the economic and historical factors influencing political and social divisions.
Haidt’s focus on moral intuitions and groupishness does not fully account for the power dynamics that shape political landscapes. For instance, the role of corporate power, economic inequality, and structural violence in creating societal divisions is only touched upon, yet these are significant factors in shaping political and moral attitudes.
Strengths and Weaknesses
Strengths:
- Clear Writing: Haidt’s ability to simplify complex scientific concepts is a standout strength. His metaphors and accessible language make the book engaging for readers across disciplines.
- Interdisciplinary Approach: Haidt effectively combines insights from psychology, evolutionary theory, anthropology, and political science, making his arguments well-rounded and grounded in scientific research.
- Timely and Relevant: The Righteous Mind’s examination of moral psychology is highly relevant to contemporary political and social issues, offering valuable insights into polarization and tribalism.
- Empathy and Bridge-building: Haidt encourages empathy across ideological divides, offering a constructive approach to reducing political and religious tension.
Weaknesses:
- Over-Simplification: While Haidt’s arguments are compelling, his theory of moral psychology may oversimplify the complexity of modern political issues. It sometimes neglects the economic, historical, and structural factors that shape political ideologies.
- Lack of Depth in Group Division: Haidt emphasizes the benefits of groupishness, but the darker side of this moral tendency—how it can lead to violence, extremism, and in-group hostility—could be explored in more depth.
- Repetitiveness: The book occasionally repeats key arguments, which may frustrate readers seeking a more concise, streamlined narrative.
The Righteous Mind offers a thought-provoking exploration into the psychology of morality and political polarization.
Haidt provides a compelling argument for why good people can be divided by politics and religion, emphasizing the role of moral intuitions and group identity in shaping our beliefs. While his arguments are generally persuasive and well-supported by research, The Righteous Mind could benefit from a deeper analysis of economic and structural factors in shaping political ideologies.
Overall, Haidt’s work is a significant contribution to the field of moral psychology, offering valuable insights into how we can better understand and bridge our political and religious divides.
Reception, Criticism, and Influence
Reception
The Righteous Mind received widespread attention upon its release in 2012, quickly becoming a bestseller and generating discussion across multiple disciplines. Haidt’s blend of psychology, philosophy, and political science attracted readers from various fields—political analysts, moral psychologists, and even general readers interested in understanding societal divisions.
The Righteous Mindwas praised for its clarity, engagement, and use of metaphor, which helped to make complex scientific theories accessible to a broad audience.
In terms of popularity, The Righteous Mind was #6 on The New York Times Best Seller list for non-fiction in April 2012. It also received positive reviews from prominent publications such as The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Wall Street Journal.
For instance, William Saletan, writing for The New York Times, called the book a “landmark contribution to humanity’s understanding of itself”, while Ian Birrell in The Guardian hailed Haidt’s ability to provide insights into the moral psychology of both liberals and conservatives, making the book valuable for anyone attempting to understand the moral underpinnings of political divisions.
Haidt’s thesis—that moral intuitions often precede reasoning and that people from different political and religious camps are guided by different moral foundations—struck a chord, especially in light of rising political and social tensions in the United States and elsewhere.
The Righteous Mind helped readers reflect on their own moral foundations and understand the psychological mechanisms driving political polarization.
Criticism
Despite its popularity, The Righteous Mind has not been without its critics. Some have questioned Haidt’s interpretation of moral psychology, and others have taken issue with certain aspects of his conclusions about liberals and conservatives.
One notable critique came from Chris Hedges, a journalist and social critic, who argued that Haidt’s approach oversimplifies the complex realities of political and social divisions. Hedges suggested that Haidt’s celebration of groupishness—the idea that morality binds people together in groups—could inadvertently sanctify the tribalism that divides societies, rather than seeking a more universal moral code that transcends ideological barriers.
Another common criticism relates to Haidt’s assertion that conservatives are more morally balanced because they draw from all six moral foundations, while liberals focus primarily on care and fairness.
While Haidt’s analysis of this moral divide is insightful, some critics argue that it oversimplifies the complexity of liberal ideologies, which also draw upon other moral concerns, particularly liberty, freedom, and justice. Additionally, critics argue that Haidt downplays the impact of economic and social inequalities, corporate interests, and structural power dynamics in shaping political views.
These factors, critics contend, play just as significant a role in political polarization as moral foundations do.
Moreover, Haidt’s framing of moral psychology has been critiqued for its emphasis on universal moral foundations without giving enough weight to the ways that historical and cultural contexts shape moral beliefs. While Haidt draws from cross-cultural examples, some argue that the moral foundations theory doesn’t sufficiently account for divergent cultural values or the changing moral landscapes over time.
Some scholars also critique Haidt’s bipartisan framework. His efforts to bridge the divide between liberals and conservatives may be viewed as insufficiently nuanced in addressing the impact of extreme polarization.
While Haidt encourages understanding across political divides, critics argue that the ideological extremes (e.g., far-right populism and far-left progressivism) in modern politics might complicate his theory of moral reconciliation. The polarizing effects of identity politics, nationalism, and tribalistic rhetoric are sometimes left underexplored.
Influence and Impact
Despite the criticisms, The Righteous Mind has had a profound influence on moral psychology, political theory, and even public discourse. The book’s impact can be seen in the growing recognition of moral foundations theory as a key framework for understanding political and social issues.
Haidt’s work has resonated widely with those seeking to understand the psychological roots of tribalism and partisanship, particularly in the context of political polarization and social media echo chambers.
In addition to influencing political scientists, Haidt’s book has been cited by educators and leaders in organizational behavior as a resource for fostering civil discourse and cross-ideological understanding.
His ideas have been applied in corporate environments, educational settings, and even international diplomacy, where fostering cooperation and understanding between divergent groups is often a crucial challenge.
Haidt’s empirical research on moral psychology has inspired numerous scholars and thinkers to explore the neurobiological and evolutionary underpinnings of moral behavior, leading to further development in the field of evolutionary ethics.
Politically, Haidt’s work has found a following among moderates and centrists, who see it as an important tool for navigating the increasingly polarized political landscape.
His ability to highlight the moral legitimacy of opposing viewpoints has contributed to a more empathetic approach to political discourse, though critics contend that it remains limited by Haidt’s emphasis on moral commonalities.
Quotations
The Righteous Mind is replete with memorable quotes that encapsulate Haidt’s central thesis on human morality, political division, and the role of intuition in moral decision-making:
- “Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.”
- “The righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors.”
- “We are all self-righteous hypocrites.”
- “If you want to understand the human mind, first understand the elephant, then the rider.”
- “Morality binds and blinds.”
These quotes reflect Haidt’s belief that moral psychology is foundational to understanding political and religious divides, as well as the importance of moral intuition in shaping human behavior.
Comparison with Similar Works
In terms of subject matter, The Righteous Mind shares similarities with Moral Tribes by Joshua Greene, which also focuses on moral psychology and political polarization.
Both books delve into the way human morality shapes political and social divisions, but while Greene emphasizes the role of utilitarian reasoning and moral trade-offs, Haidt focuses more on moral foundations and group psychology.
Haidt’s work also bears comparison to The Righteous Mind with The Happiness Hypothesis, his previous book, which explored the scientific basis of human happiness and virtue. In The Happiness Hypothesis, Haidt argued that human happiness arises from the balance of several factors—similar to how morality, according to The Righteous Mind, emerges from the interplay of multiple moral dimensions.
While Haidt’s analysis is interdisciplinary, drawing heavily on evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, Steven Pinker‘s The Blank Slate focuses more specifically on the biological foundations of human behavior, providing a counterpoint to Haidt’s more nuanced take on morality.
Conclusion
In conclusion, The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt provides a profound and thought-provoking examination of why good people can be divided by politics and religion.
Haidt’s core argument—that moral intuitions precede strategic reasoning—offers an innovative perspective on political polarization and provides a compelling case for the interdependence of intuition and reasoning in moral judgment.
Despite criticisms about the book’s occasional oversimplification of political dynamics and its focus on moral foundations, Haidt’s work remains one of the most significant contributions to moral psychology and political discourse in the 21st century.
The Righteous Mindis highly recommended for anyone looking to understand the psychological roots of tribalism, political division, and religious conflicts.
Haidt’s ability to navigate between scientific rigor and philosophical reflection makes The Righteous Mind an essential read for anyone interested in understanding the forces that shape human behavior in today’s polarized world.
