Andrew, Alastair, and Derek consider Jonathan Haidt’s thesis that conservatives and liberals are divided by how they value harm, fairness, and authority.
—
If you enjoyed the show, leave us a review at iTunes. If you didn’t enjoy the show, let us know and we’ll work to make it better. Or we’ll ignore you, and you’ll feel better for having vented your feelings. We are here to help, either way. And if you want to subscribe by RSS, you can do that here.
If you’re interested in supporting the show (you know, with money), you can check out our Patreon here.
Finally, as always, follow Derek, Alastair, and Andrew for more tweet-sized brilliance. And thanks to Timothy Motte for his sound editing work.
[…] this week’s episode of Mere Fidelity, Derek, Andrew, and I get together to discuss Jonathan Haidt’s moral […]
As someone who was once a committed atheist and a fan of evolutionary-psychology books, I found it an uncomfortable read. The author allows for the evolution of a religious instinct (unlike Dawkins who seems to be irritated by possibility that religiosity might be a fixed and enduring feature of a normal human brain) but he also clearly “explains away” the content of any particular religion or equivalent secular belief system.
The switch from skeptic to believer certainly brought me peace (relaxed after accepting/expressing my full humanness?) but this book got me thinking “Oh well, that’s all my conversion was”. How depressing.
But, as Matt says, it is worth reading to gain a better “understanding of the variety of moral logics”.