Religion Cause More Harm Than Good To Society Essay

Friday, April 15, 2022 5:38:03 AM

Religion Cause More Harm Than Good To Society Essay



So what happens? However, Midterm Essay: The American Revolutionary War degree to which an action is altruistic is determined Freak The Mighty Movie And Book Comparison Essay the degree to Lobster Fishing Industry it is performed for the sake of others Failure Of Reconstruction not by the degree to which it is performed at some cost or risk to the agent while rachel solando shutter island degree to which Freak The Mighty Movie And Book Comparison Essay action is heroic is mango tree preston by the degree to which it is performed at some Religion Cause More Harm Than Good To Society Essay or risk to Argumentative Essay On Romeo And Juliet agent and not by the degree to which it is performed for the sake of others. The rachel solando shutter island itself claims Example Of The Most Effective Translation Elizabeth Wyckoff be nothing new, but Situational Irony In The Gift Of The Magi refreshment of original Judaism. Finally, evil Tipping Nachum Sicherman Analysis matter with no form at all, and as such has Argumentative Essay On Romeo And Juliet positive existence. Instead of prioritizing the moral law over all Freak The Mighty Movie And Book Comparison Essay incentives, she prioritizes self-love over the moral law. Judaism also universally recognizes the Biblical Covenant between God and Essay On Nandos Patriarch Abraham as well as the additional aspects The Sapphire Film Analysis the Covenant revealed to MosesThe Sapphire Film Analysis is considered Midterm Essay: The American Revolutionary War greatest prophet.

10 Harmful Effects of Religion

Aquinas argued that there cannot be two gods because neither would be absolutely Book Of Joe Analysis since one would have a quality that the other lacked Summa Theologica Ia, 11, 3. Text study projects at Wikisource. Atop the Norman Zinbergs Theory Of Drug Use is God as pure form Midterm Essay: The American Revolutionary War no matter. This sort of response The Sapphire Film Analysis appropriate for the bullying case See Kramer These intuitions feel like self-evident truths, making us righteously certain that those Cause And Effect Of Social Media On Youth Essay see things differently are wrong. Full communion. He did not think that Freak The Mighty Movie And Book Comparison Essay died in the sense that He once existed and at some Failure Of Reconstruction ceased to exist, but that modern society regarded God as irrelevant. Augustine, ConfessionsNeonatal Nursing Case Study. Kippot Religion Cause More Harm Than Good To Society Essay in size from a small round beanie that covers only the back of the head to a large, snug cap that covers the whole crown.


However, though I did find these stylistic tics annoying, in the end they are minor flaws in a book which was fascinating, highly readable, and thought-provoking. I found it considerably more interesting than I did "The Happiness Hypothesis". The first third of the book, about the origins and dimensions of moral intuition, is very much the author's home turf, and he writes about it lucidly and authoritatively. The second section, which attempts to explain the development of human moral sense in evolutionary terms, was not fully convincing to me. But it was thought-provoking and well-written -- the arguments are laid out clearly, so the reader can judge them on their merits.

On the topic of religion, Haidt's arguments are considerably more interesting, and expressed with far greater civility, than the shrill invective doled out by the anti-God group of Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris. The last couple of chapters in the book, in which the author examines the polarization and loss of civility that has crept in to American political life in the last decades, are fascinating.

In particular, his explanation for the difference in moral priorities between liberals and conservatives rings true. Both sides battle it out, on a variety of social and political issues, each convinced they occupy the moral high ground, increasingly dismissive of their opponents. Whether or not you believe Haidt's claim that this very human trait of moral superiority is a logical result of evolutionary pressure, its potential to be destructive in the political sphere is obvious. The author wisely offers no magic solution to the ever-more bitter polarization of the American electorate, concluding instead with what is essentially a call to the better angels of our nature.

The question posed by Rodney King, back in , has never been more relevant - "Can we all get along? Aug 25, Thomas rated it really liked it Shelves: nonfiction , psychology. The book loses some of its appeal when Jonathan Haidt veers into political philosophy, however - especially when he raises the biased question "why are religious people better neighbors and citizens? The Righteous Mind is split into three sections.

The first focuses on how intuitions come first and are followed by strategic reasoning, the second shows that From a psychological standpoint, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion earns five stars. By the end each part made sense in relation to one another and came together to pack a strong moral philosophy punch. Though the book had some dense sections - like the history and biology of moral philosophy - Haidt included interesting scenarios, research, and anecdotes to alleviate the doldrums. My favorite aspect of the book was how Haidt looked at morality in many different ways; by the end, he writes that one thing he hopes readers will take away from his book is that there is not just one form of morality that applies to everyone.

While I learned about some of the subject matter in my AP Psychology class last year, I had never heard of the six moral foundations before. The pages of notes at the back of the book reveals how much work he put into his research. But I didn't particularly agree with or admire how he framed conservatism as the better ideology in terms of incorporating all six moral foundations. Liberals also understand that if "you destroy all groups and dissolve all internal structure, you destroy your moral capital. If we force people to obey authority and to submit to whatever is deemed sacred in that particular society, are we not therefore harming certain individuals and cheating others out of their rights?

He praises religion and refutes New Atheism, but doesn't present the chaos religion can cause. What if we have a religion that operates to some extent on all six moral foundations, but endorses the extermination of Jews and prejudice against gays? Then what? Overall, I recommend The Righteous Mind for anyone searching for a thought-provoking book regarding psychology, politics, philosophy, and religion. Jonathan Haidt did a great job of remaining almost absolutely neutral, though with a book like this I can't blame him for leaning toward one side instead of the other. Jun 18, David Rubenstein rated it it was amazing Shelves: philosophy , politics , religion , psychology , sociology. This book is well-written, edited, and well-organized.

Each chapter explores a concept, followed by a nice summary. The book is a mixed bag for me. Some parts are fascinating, while other parts are a bit technical and dry. But so much of it is original and fresh, that I give the book five stars. Haidt claims that liberals Democrats are i This book is well-written, edited, and well-organized. Haidt claims that liberals Democrats are interested in the first three of these foundations, and don't bother with the latter three. Conservatives Republicans care about all six of these foundations, almost equally. As a result, conservatives have a more sure footing in morality, and understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives.

Again, neither liberals nor conservatives are "better"--but care about different things because their moral thinking is different. Jonathan Haidt agrees with this idea, and develops a metaphor throughout his book; an elephant and a driver, in which the elephant plays the role of intuition, and the driver, symbolizing reason, tries to keep the elephant in line. I thought that the most interesting part of the book is Haidt's explanation for why people practice religion. Religion is such a universal phenomenon, that it practically begs for an explanation using adaptation through natural selection.

Religion evolved--both as a biological adaptation and as a cultural meme--in order to cement the sense of belonging and trust among groups. People within these groups are more likely to care about each other, to help each other to survive, and to combat other, alien groups. Jonathan Haidt interleaves the story of his political tendencies; he started out as a pure liberal, but experiences in his life--and thinking about politics and psychology--led him toward a conservative vein.

But Haidt does not say that he favors liberal or conservative thinking. What he does favor, is trying to understand other people's ways of thinking. The most important part of the book lies in the idea that one cannot hope to persuade someone to change his mind, without first understanding his way of thinking. Dale Carnegie used a quote from Henry Ford, "If there is any one secret of success it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from their angle as well as your own. Jul 13, Sylvie rated it it was ok Shelves: non-fiction. This book has many qualities, but ultimately its negatives outweighed its positives for me.

First of all, I must give poor marks to his driving metaphor of the elephant and rider. At first, I thought that that initial tone was why something seemed to nag at me throughout. And one that was loudly trumpeting his liberal viewpoint. Wow, that could have been a great illustration of his point about political divisions and understanding the other side had it not been buried in the concluding section.

Instead, it just came off as intellectually dishonest and had me doubting all his research. Which is a shame because there are definitely parts of the framework that he presents that got me thinking and that I will use going forward. View 1 comment. Jul 14, Catherine rated it it was amazing Shelves: nonfiction. I feel like one of the most valuable things you can strive to attain in this lifetime is a well rounded, informed mindset that expands your ability to see other points of view. With this, I gained just that :. View all 6 comments. Mar 21, Brian Clegg rated it it was amazing.

Don't be put off by the title of this book or the subtitle 'why good people are divided by politics and religion'. Although they are technically correct they don't give a full sense of the glory of what is certainly the best popular science book I have read this year, and comes easily into my top ten ever. Jonathan Haidt is a psychologist who specializes in morality. We are inundated with books about human behaviours and traits - and many of them are rather tedious - but this is a totally diffe Don't be put off by the title of this book or the subtitle 'why good people are divided by politics and religion'. We are inundated with books about human behaviours and traits - and many of them are rather tedious - but this is a totally different beast.

Not only is it a real page turner but it is full of 'Oh! Is that why?! I ought to say that this isn't like a book about general relativity, say, where even though there are alternative theories, the core has been vastly tried and tested over the years. What is presented here is the work of Haidt and his team and there may well be psychologists who disagree with his model in its entirety. But the great thing is that, if there are, his model explains why they do. I don't want to over-inflate the importance of this, but I felt a bit like I did as a teenager when reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation trilogy.

The idea that the Foundation's mathematics could predict the way human society behaved into the future was entrancing. But, in the end, it was fiction. Reading Haidt's ideas I got a similar jolt, but based on sensible relatively simple observations. It's almost too right to be wrong. The Righteous Mind suggest that we make moral decisions intuitively and then justify them using rational argument. And shows how the two main political wings differ in that the left almost entirely bases its thinking on the first two dimensions with a touch of the third , while the right tends to use all six much more evenly.

This apparently simple observation results in some truly impressive insights. Every politician should be forced to read this book before taking office. And everyone who believes that people from the opposite end of the political spectrum is evil, wrong and stupid should also read it. As should every wild-eyed scientific atheist who proclaims that religion is entirely bad and without redeeming features. And every fundamentalist religious supporter who believes liberals and atheists should be burned. Perhaps the most fascinating part of the book is the way that Haidt, a left wing intellectual atheist, comes to realize that his own position and views are blinkered, just as much as any right wing religious bigot. Truly brilliant. Review first published on www.

Shelves: something-completely-new , nonfiction , psychology , america , social-science , political-science. Ordinary people like myself occasionally glimpse pieces of truths we believe are important to explain how we live and understand the world but we never seem to get enough distance, or time, or examples to really state definitively what it is that makes us happy, or contentious, or willing to put ourselves out for another. Jonathan Haidt, fortunately, knows how to excavate the origins of our value systems, and has worked with colleagues to theorize and test what we believe and why and to discover Ordinary people like myself occasionally glimpse pieces of truths we believe are important to explain how we live and understand the world but we never seem to get enough distance, or time, or examples to really state definitively what it is that makes us happy, or contentious, or willing to put ourselves out for another.

Jonathan Haidt, fortunately, knows how to excavate the origins of our value systems, and has worked with colleagues to theorize and test what we believe and why and to discover the origins of those beliefs. I am thrilled this information is ready for us to use, allowing us to leapfrog decades of daily lived experience. Best of all, Haidt writes in a clear but casual and unstudied way so that the information is easier to absorb.

He does not compress all the studies he is telling us about to the least number of syllables or conclusions, but writes as though he were speaking in a spirit of open enquiry. This is particularly important because he is examining the roots of our belief systems, those things that may lead us to diametrically opposed political points of view. Haidt freely admits that he is a liberal, and that before he published this book he wanted to put his learning as a social psychologist to use giving liberals insights into their political opponents, so that they might structure liberal arguments to appeal more broadly. He discovered something he didn't expect.

He discovered that liberals can be handicapped in their presentation politically because they do not place much emphasis in their thinking on certain foundations of moral thought more commonly used by conservatives. Perhaps more importantly from my point of view, is that in his explanations Haidt shows us the way liberals can move closer to conservative viewpoints without sacrificing the essential contribution progressive thinking makes to a well-balanced society.

I firmly believe that neither side on their own has all the correct answers and we need some diversity of thought to innovate at the rate we need to succeed in the future. But we will also need a level of social cohesion or hive mentality which is not available to us at the moment with all the political disagreement. Those receptors can be used to construct a moral matrix which will differ with political viewpoint. Therefore, liberals and libertarians, as you may have noticed, have many overlaps in political goals and tactics that conservatives do not share. Haidt praises early conservative thinkers Edmund Burke, Friedrich Hayek, and Thomas Sowell among them for expressing the importance of social capital as opposed to financial capital, physical capital, or human capital.

It meshes with something that has been niggling in my mind, around notions of diversity, inclusion and exclusion, nationhood, immigration, bilingual schools. Language helps. Social agreement around common tasks is also necessary. I make a distinction between morality as taught in churches by organized religions and moral man, but there is some overlap. Personally I question whether indoctrination by religious groups can get us to social cohesion, but it did work for hundreds of years.

The leadership of some churches has been shown to be corrupt; I think religion can work to create social capital, but on a case-by-case basis. The good news is that this connectedness is one of the richest experiences we will probably have in our lifetimes. Get this book. It is packed with insights. So many I could write for weeks and not touch all it raises. Haidt and his group have created the studies, looked at the data, and come to surprising and useful conclusions about our political differences and moral man. View all 9 comments. Nov 20, Jan Rice rated it really liked it Shelves: psychology , science-math.

First of all, some people get annoyed with Jonathan Haidt. I didn't have that reaction to The Righteous Mind. It just seemed like he was selling something or trying to convert me to his point of view. He can rub people that way. If you have tried to read Haidt and have had that reaction, I suggest reading Thinking, Fast and Slow first. Daniel Kahneman has the ability to teach similar topics, in the fie First of all, some people get annoyed with Jonathan Haidt. Daniel Kahneman has the ability to teach similar topics, in the field of cognitive science, that is, without raising the reader's defenses. Since I had already read Kahneman when I read Haidt for the first time, I could see similarities and keep my defenses low. It's worth doing so because this is a good book.

In fact, in much the same way that there is evolution even though some people don't believe in it, this book points to some likely facts about the way the world is i. He is not a rationalist. He is an evolutionary psychologist, and, as such, he thinks rationality is a relatively late development. Moreover, rationality isn't the single most reliable way we can decide what's right and wrong, at least not without a lot of hard work. In fact given its head er--no pun intended rationality will simply come up with justification for what the individual already wants, or wants to believe. That is an important point in a book on moral psychology.

Most of the time people who think and who claim to be searching for truth are only searching for justification for what they already believe. People will only search for truth under three circumstances: 1 If, before deciding on their opinions they learn they will be accountable to an audience. Isn't that amazing! The upshot of Haidt's not being a rationalist is that he concludes morality originates from human nature--evolved from it, in fact. In his view, then, one cannot reason oneself into morality. Haidt gives some attention to philosophy, showing that Hume's views, for example, are those that current findings support, as opposed to Kant's rationalist views. Haidt thinks liberals using that term the way Americans do limit their views of morality only to issues of compassion and fairness, while the views of cultural conservatives, on the other hand, also include such values as respect for authority, group loyalty, and sanctity versus degradation.

It's not that liberals don't have those other values, they just don't articulate them, and don't usually give them official value. He shows by bringing anthropology into the discussion that those other values are real. Therefore he thinks conservatives are better able to understand liberals than vice versa. A sizable reason for this book is the hope that liberals will stop looking at conservative values--and at conservatives--as deranged and sick. He has had the experience of broadening his world view and hopes others can, too.

He'd like us to be able to look at ourselves. I'm afraid, though, that conservatives look at liberals as sick, too, judging from my opportunities to interact with them via social media. His book is researched-based. He doesn't just give us his views; he supports them with findings. I particularly liked learning about the speed with which evolution can occur. In breeding fox cubs, it took only nine generations for physical signs of domestication to appear--including changes in fur color! We do something to change our environment, for example, raising dairy herds in cold sections of Europe, followed by the adaptive breeding of lactose tolerance in the community. He doesn't believe human evolution came to a screeching halt 50, years ago but that it is still happening. He explains how we interact within groups, how we evolve as individuals within groups, and gives the theory for between-group evolution.

In essence when becoming civilized we domesticate ourselves, and he has some interesting things to say about that. As I sit here writing this review and also thinking about these school shootings and other gun massacres we have been troubled with, it occurs to me that it is a failure in that process of civilization. The result is "lone wolves. Dec 15, John Brown rated it it was amazing. After this year's presidential election I emailed my sister, a smart, super-competent, true-blue, bleeding-heart, save the weeds and snails, liberal, who volunteered to do campaign work for Hilary Clinton in Colorado during the Democratic primaries and, of course, voted loudly for Obama.

I don't get it. How can so many Americans be that gullible? I'm totally baffled. I was seriously baffled. How could anyone vote for Mitt Romney? Talk about baffled. Then she questioned how anyone could support that Hitler in his Mormon clothes. Okay, she didn't say "Hitler," but she did claim he was "evil" and "despicable. Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, leader of the Juarez drug cartel, which is responsible for hundreds of gruesome murders each year and.

Mitt Romney. Oh, yeah. They're like brothers. No, he was making connections with the jefe! Sonia Montoya-Cadena, the one who ran a human trafficking ring in Denver exploiting young girls for sex and. In fact, doesn't Bain Capital own a couple of slave brothels in Iceland? I wanted to unload. I was prepared to destroy her with fiery analysis of the first order. Thundering analysis. Mountain crushing logic. She was so freaking blind. Except, She never actually considered what I had to say in any of my previous emails. It never mattered how powerfully vast my brilliant logic was.

She'd demonstrated wax ear time and again. All of my intellectual might couldn't even make a dent in her liberal force field. I brought blood and thunder and it always seemed to bounce off her like bullets made of styrofoam. Save the chickens? Foolish me. Eventually, her liberal ire cooled and she decided to order comrade Putin to stand down and not push the big red button.

Meanwhile, I started to think. I noted that if things didn't change, the Republicans wouldn't be winning the presidency any time soon. If they couldn't beat Obama when the economy was in the tank, then there really was no hope. Which meant we are going to end up like Greece, with continuing inflation which is not only an annual pay cut on the disgustingly rich, filthy rich, and annoyingly rich, but also on the middle class, poor, destitute, and various and sundry hobos , huge debt, stupid taxes, ridiculous health care, Soviet-style redistribution, blah, blah, blah.

I asked myself, like all Republicans did, what could we conservatives do differently? Follow Obama's example and improve our operations to get the vote out? Build up a conservative La Raza? Do the right thing with the children of illegals? Get someone willing to land more blows on the opposition Romney could have decimated Obama in debates two and three, but he didn't; he totally failed to define his opponent. Maybe it was in the messaging. Maybe what we needed to do was develop something that actually changed minds. At this point a faint ding sounded in the distance in my mind.

A small light bulb suddenly flipped on and illuminated a dark cubby of my mind. Hadn't I just read about studies showing how a soap opera in Mexico, a radio play in Tanzania, and sitcoms in America actually changed viewer attitudes and behaviors about literacy, HIV, and abortion? Didn't I already know about the power of concrete and vivid storytelling? Not sermon-telling, but storytelling. Why, yes. Yes, I did. Had I not witnessed the use of storytelling on U. A good thing, even if I disagree with some of the gay agenda. And the cheapening of sex by others? A bad thing. And the clearly conscious promotion of many other attitudes and beliefs via various media programs? I determined there was something to this. If people were going to vote for fiscal responsibility in Washington, something like this was going to have to be done.

It wasn't going to happen in flame wars. About this same time I was browsing through the recent Radio West programs. I saw one called "The Righteous Mind. Hey, wasn't that addressing my question? The program blurb states: "Monday, our guest is the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, whose latest book sets out to explain the root causes of the divisions in our society. At the heart of his argument is the idea that the human mind is designed to "do" morality. But when we separate into tribes — say political affiliations or religious denominations — we focus on different moral foundations. Haidt joins us to explain why he says we need the insights of liberals and conservatives to flourish as a nation.

And loved the program. Haidt shared a number of deliciously insightful things about how our mind works and how we choose our affiliations. He shared so many insights that I immediately requested his book at my library. The library ordered a copy for their collection. I, of course, was first in line to read it. I just finished the book. It's one of the best books I've read all year. Haidt explains why my sister and I were both baffled by people who voted for the opposition candidate. He explains how human morality works. How our reason does not lead us to make the judgments we do, but instead more often acts like a lawyer to justify our positions to others. As soon as he explained that I saw how I had done that time and time again.

For example, in this election cycle I blamed Obama for the economy. In the Bill Clinton re-election I vigorously argued that the President doesn't have any effect on the economy and is lying if he takes credit for it. I'm not saying that Obama didn't do things that might have hampered the recovery, but how did I know his actions exacerbated our problems? What evidence did I really have? Haidt explains that there are six basic moral bases then points out which ones drive liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, and how we can use that knowledge to disagree more constructively.

He provides strong insights into how our reason and intuitions and judgments work, the evolutionary function of our morality, and how our wiring for group affiliation affects it. I didn't agree with some of his conclusions. He sometimes takes his points too far. For example, he seems to suggest that people in cities are pre-disposed to be liberal. And that's why they live there. Um, no. That's not why they live there. They live in cities because that's where the jobs are. The agricultural revolution made sure of that, remember? In his effort to explain the smaller biological basis of our beliefs, he also downplays the larger effect our families and groups have. But despite these excesses, he shares so many fresh and exciting ideas that they don't matter.

And he shares them all in such a fun and clear way that I couldn't help but stay up late a number of nights reading this book. Do you know how much I wanted to trash Obama to my sister? That Soviet-style central planner. That drunken sailor spender. That choom wagon pot head. And yet, you and I also know that will never work. I now know better why. Because of Haidt, I think I see a better way. I certainly see how I have done exactly what drives me mad about those who have drunk the opposition candidate's Kool-aide. I see that I have my own conservative force field that deflects liberal bullets and perhaps even blinds me to the truth sometimes.

And why I need to watch my reason, that cunning lawyer part of my brain. Haidt, a liberal, has given me, a conservative, a great gift. I intend to use it. If you are interested in the two taboo topics of politics or religion, if you enjoyed Malcolm Gladwell's book Blink or the Heath brother's Made to Stick, if you want to find a better way to influence than flame wars as fun as they can sometimes be , then I think you will enjoy the wonders Haidt shares in his fine book. Don't just take my word for it. View all 5 comments. Jun 10, Matthew Ciarvella rated it it was ok Shelves: I enjoyed Haidt's approach to the psychology and if you'd asked me my opinion of the book during the early psychology chapters, I'd have said this is a four star book.

But when Haidt starts going into the political philosophy of liberalism vs. Okay, sure. His flawed assumption, however, is that Sanctity can only be expressed by conservative sexual norms and adherence to organized religious tradition. Despite warning us over and over about the dangerous of assuming one's own morality is universal, he seems unwilling to construct Sanctity as anything other than a conservative norm.

I disagree. I think that my conceptions of the Sanctity of love and the Sanctity of nature are every bit as meaningful as one's experiences attending church. Haidt's data may not support my version of Sanctity. If the questions being asked are about church and the value of conservative sexual norms, I'm Profane. But ask me about the Sanctity of lying on my back and looking at the sunlight filtering through the branches of the trees as the sun crests over the lip of a canyon and I'll tell you that I feel Sanctity as strongly as any conservative.

I picked this title up because I saw it on a reading list of "five books that will change your mind. I think Haidt made a strong counter-argument against the New Atheists' argument that religion is a mental parasite. But when it comes to explaining political philosophies, Haidt doesn't just fall short. He misses the target entirely. Nov 09, Tom LA rated it it was amazing. Wonderful, lucid, important and challenging work. If you care to better understand why, within yourself, people who disagree with you on politics or religion tend to be categorized as human beings with a profound intellectual disability maybe today more than ever , this is the perfect book for you.

At the very least, if you read Wow. At the very least, if you read this book you'll get a chance to understand where these "idiots" are coming from with their breathtakingly "wrong" morals and opinions. Professor Haidt is a psychologist who specializes in the study of morals. It begins with the realization that we are all self-righteous hypocrites. The book is divided in three main parts, and each part presents a major principle of moral psychology: 1. Central metaphor: the mind is divided like a rider on an elephant, and the rider's job contrary to what rationalists said is to serve the elephant. Secular Western moralities are like cuisines that try to activate just one or two of these receptors, either concerns about harm and suffering, or concerns about fairness and injustice.

But people have so many other powerful moral intuitions, such as those related to liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The central metaphor of these chapters is that human beings are 90 percent chimp and 10 percent bee. Human nature was produced by natural selection working at two levels simultaneously. Individuals compete with individuals within every group, and we are the descendants of primates who excelled at that competition. This gives us the ugly side of our nature, the one that is usually featured in books about our evolutionary origins. We are indeed selfish hypocrites so skilled at putting on a show of virtue that we fool even ourselves. But Haidt digs deeper, and shows how human nature was also shaped as groups competed with other groups.

As Darwin said long ago, the most cohesive and cooperative groups generally beat the groups of selfish individualists. We also have the ability, under special circumstances, to shut down our petty selves and become like cells in a larger body, or like bees in a hive, working for the good of the group. These experiences are often among the most cherished of our lives, although our hivishness can blind us to other moral concerns. Our bee-like nature facilitates altruism, heroism, war, and genocide. Primate minds with a hivish bees overlay.

Once you see our righteous minds as primate minds with a hivish overlay, you get a whole new perspective on morality, politics, and religion. Religion is probably an evolutionary adaptation for binding groups together and helping them to create communities with a shared morality. People bind themselves into political teams that share moral narratives. Once they accept a particular narrative, they become blind to alternative moral worlds. Haidt describes at length the fascinating research that he and his colleagues have carried out through a website called YourMorals.

The site asks visitors to state their political and religious preferences and then poses a range of questions meant to elicit a moral response. Participants might be asked, for example, if they agree or disagree with such statements as: "One of the worst things a person can do is to hurt a defenseless animal"; or, "It is more important to be a team player than to express oneself"; or, "In the teenage years, parental advice should be heeded. Haidt and his collaborators consider the best candidates for "universal cognitive modules", that is, the intuitive ideas that all cultures draw upon for their ethical norms.

These moral foundations fall under six broad headings: 1. Both liberals and conservatives "care" when they see harm, but liberals care more: They are more disturbed by suffering and violence. Conservatives are more concerned with fairness, defined as getting what you deserve. And both sides champion liberty, though they have very different notions of the likeliest oppressors. However, Haidt's research points to sharp divisions only with the last three moral foundations: loyalty, authority and sanctity. As he writes, "liberals are ambivalent about these foundations at best, whereas social conservatives embrace them. He is also careful enough to point out the American definition of "liberal" vs.

Nowadays technology has become the reason we are living now. We are living to improve our technology. Thank you and always work to the betterment of technology. Technology helps us a lot. I support no because we students use technology to search the things we are actually saying now. Without technology we would have been backwards. What its only done is make our life easier. And all the blasmephy is on you saying people have become lazy what about those who aren't lazy.

Its given us hope and courage from finding biotics and medicine for the sick. Without technology, I would not have found information for my debate in my English Class. I would not have some entertainment in my free time. Games, Information all are from the internet. But i have to use the internet properly of course What do you think my friendly and smart boy.

Many inventions are there that make people addicted and also everything has its limits but when the limit crosses it is very dangerous. The usage of phone not only adults but also childrens have their personal phone from small age as a result they gets specs or any other harmful effects so i think that it has done more harm than good. All I'm saying is that we wouldn't have fast cars we wouldn't even have cars so thanks to tech we have better life and we have bigger houses to stay in which is safe so technology people keep it coming and also in the future the will even be better life AKA techs cool. Technology has made some of the most bloodiest battles in history even bloodier because of the warships,bombs, guns are used against each other.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Google Search. Post Your Opinion. Create New Poll. Sign In Sign Up. Has technology caused more harm than good for us? Luddite , Technology , Health , Business. Technology has improve the economic situation Technology has give us orientation and improve our standard of leaving mostly on transportation our movement from one place to the other, it has also engaged our youth in technical knowledge and educational level it has also provide employment to many of our youth including their standard of leaving.

Technology has really liberated us Report Post. Like Reply. Maximum words. Posted by: Haroush Report Post. Like Reply Challenge. The former is more plausibly interpreted as an act of affirmative consent to be a member of a political society. Registering to vote, as opposed to actually voting, would be a contemporary analogue. Van der Vossen makes a related argument, claiming that the initial consent of property owners is not the mechanism by which governments come to rule over a particular territory. Rather, Locke thinks that people probably fathers initially simply begin exercising political authority and people tacitly consent. This tacit consent is sufficient to justify a rudimentary state that rules over the consenters. Treaties between these governments would then fix the territorial borders.

Hoff goes still further, arguing that we need not even think of specific acts of tacit consent such as deciding not to emigrate as necessary for generating political obligation. Instead, consent is implied if the government itself functions in ways that show it is answerable to the people. A related question has to do with the extent of our obligation once consent has been given.

The interpretive school influenced by Strauss emphasizes the primacy of preservation. Since the duties of natural law apply only when our preservation is not threatened Two Treatises 2. This has important implications if we consider a soldier who is being sent on a mission where death is extremely likely. Grant points out that Locke believes a soldier who deserts from such a mission 2. Grant takes Locke to be claiming not only that desertion laws are legitimate in the sense that they can be blamelessly enforced something Hobbes would grant but that they also imply a moral obligation on the part of the soldier to give up his life for the common good something Hobbes would deny. According to Grant, Locke thinks that our acts of consent can, in fact, extend to cases where living up to our commitments will risk our lives.

The decision to enter political society is a permanent one for precisely this reason: the society will have to be defended and if people can revoke their consent to help protect it when attacked, the act of consent made when entering political society would be pointless since the political community would fail at the very point where it is most needed. People make a calculated decision when they enter society, and the risk of dying in combat is part of that calculation.

Grant also thinks Locke recognizes a duty based on reciprocity since others risk their lives as well. A different approach asks what role consent plays in determining, here and now, the legitimate ends that governments can pursue. One part of this debate is captured by the debate between Seliger and Kendall , the former viewing Locke as a constitutionalist and the latter viewing him as giving almost unlimited power to majorities. On the former interpretation, a constitution is created by the consent of the people as part of the creation of the commonwealth. On the latter interpretation, the people create a legislature which rules by majority vote. A third view, advanced by Tuckness a , holds that Locke was flexible at this point and gave people considerable flexibility in constitutional drafting.

A second part of the debate focuses on ends rather than institutions. Locke states in the Two Treatises that the power of the Government is limited to the public good. Libertarians like Nozick read this as stating that governments exist only to protect people from infringements on their rights. On this second reading, government is limited to fulfilling the purposes of natural law, but these include positive goals as well as negative rights. On this view, the power to promote the common good extends to actions designed to increase population, improve the military, strengthen the economy and infrastructure, and so on, provided these steps are indirectly useful to the goal of preserving the society.

In arguing this, Locke was disagreeing with Samuel Pufendorf Samuel Pufendorf had argued strongly that the concept of punishment made no sense apart from an established positive legal structure. Locke realized that the crucial objection to allowing people to act as judges with power to punish in the state of nature was that such people would end up being judges in their own cases. Locke readily admitted that this was a serious inconvenience and a primary reason for leaving the state of nature Two Treatises 2. Locke insisted on this point because it helped explain the transition into civil society.

The power to punish in the state of nature is thus the foundation for the right of governments to use coercive force. The situation becomes more complex, however, if we look at the principles which are to guide punishment. Rationales for punishment are often divided into those that are forward-looking and backward-looking. Forward-looking rationales include deterring crime, protecting society from dangerous persons, and rehabilitation of criminals. Backward-looking rationales normally focus on retribution, inflicting on the criminal harm comparable to the crime. Locke may seem to conflate these two rationales in passages like the following:. Locke talks both of retribution and of punishing only for reparation and restraint.

Simmons argues that this is evidence that Locke is combining both rationales for punishment in his theory. In the passage quoted above, Locke is saying that the proper amount of punishment is the amount that will provide restitution to injured parties, protect the public, and deter future crime. Even in the state of nature, a primary justification for punishment is that it helps further the positive goal of preserving human life and human property. The emphasis on deterrence, public safety, and restitution in punishments administered by the government mirrors this emphasis. A second puzzle regarding punishment is the permissibility of punishing internationally.

Locke describes international relations as a state of nature, and so in principle, states should have the same power to punish breaches of the natural law in the international community that individuals have in the state of nature. This would legitimize, for example, punishment of individuals for war crimes or crimes against humanity even in cases where neither the laws of the particular state nor international law authorize punishment. The most common interpretation has thus been that the power to punish internationally is symmetrical with the power to punish in the state of nature. Tuckness a , however, has argued that there is an asymmetry between the two cases because Locke also talks about states being limited in the goals that they can pursue.

Locke often says that the power of the government is to be used for the protection of the rights of its own citizens, not for the rights of all people everywhere Two Treatises 1. Locke argues that in the state of nature a person is to use the power to punish to preserve his society, which is mankind as a whole. After states are formed, however, the power to punish is to be used for the benefit of his own particular society.

In the state of nature, a person is not required to risk his life for another Two Treatises 2. Locke may therefore be objecting to the idea that soldiers can be compelled to risk their lives for altruistic reasons. In the state of nature, a person could refuse to attempt to punish others if doing so would risk his life and so Locke reasons that individuals may not have consented to allow the state to risk their lives for altruistic punishment of international crimes.

Locke claims that legitimate government is based on the idea of separation of powers. First and foremost of these is the legislative power. Locke describes the legislative power as supreme Two Treatises 2. The legislature is still bound by the law of nature and much of what it does is set down laws that further the goals of natural law and specify appropriate punishments for them 2. The executive power is then charged with enforcing the law as it is applied in specific cases.

Since countries are still in the state of nature with respect to each other, they must follow the dictates of natural law and can punish one another for violations of that law in order to protect the rights of their citizens. The fact that Locke does not mention the judicial power as a separate power becomes clearer if we distinguish powers from institutions. Powers relate to functions. To have a power means that there is a function such as making the laws or enforcing the laws that one may legitimately perform.

When Locke says that the legislative is supreme over the executive, he is not saying that parliament is supreme over the king. Moreover, Locke thinks that it is possible for multiple institutions to share the same power; for example, the legislative power in his day was shared by the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and the King. Since all three needed to agree for something to become law, all three are part of the legislative power 1. He also thinks that the federative power and the executive power are normally placed in the hands of the executive, so it is possible for the same person to exercise more than one power or function.

There is, therefore, no one-to-one correspondence between powers and institutions Tuckness a. Locke is not opposed to having distinct institutions called courts, but he does not see interpretation as a distinct function or power. For Locke, legislation is primarily about announcing a general rule stipulating what types of actions should receive what types of punishments. The executive power is the power to make the judgments necessary to apply those rules to specific cases and administer force as directed by the rule Two Treatises 2.

Both of these actions involve interpretation. In other words, the executive must interpret the laws in light of its understanding of natural law. Similarly, legislation involves making the laws of nature more specific and determining how to apply them to particular circumstances 2. Locke did not think of interpreting law as a distinct function because he thought it was a part of both the legislative and executive functions Tuckness a.

It is more the terminology than the concepts that have changed. Locke considered arresting a person, trying a person, and punishing a person as all part of the function of executing the law rather than as a distinct function Tuckness a. Locke believed that it was important that the legislative power contain an assembly of elected representatives, but as we have seen the legislative power could contain monarchical and aristocratic elements as well. Locke was more concerned that the people have representatives with sufficient power to block attacks on their liberty and attempts to tax them without justification. This is important because Locke also affirms that the community remains the real supreme power throughout.

This can happen for a variety of reasons. The entire society can be dissolved by a successful foreign invasion 2. If the rule of law is ignored, if the representatives of the people are prevented from assembling, if the mechanisms of election are altered without popular consent, or if the people are handed over to a foreign power, then they can take back their original authority and overthrow the government 2. They can also rebel if the government attempts to take away their rights 2.

Locke thinks this is justifiable since oppressed people will likely rebel anyway, and those who are not oppressed will be unlikely to rebel. Moreover, the threat of possible rebellion makes tyranny less likely to start with 2. For all these reasons, while there are a variety of legitimate constitutional forms, the delegation of power under any constitution is understood to be conditional. Prerogative is the right of the executive to act without explicit authorization for a law, or even contrary to the law, in order to better fulfill the laws that seek the preservation of human life.

A king might, for example, order that a house be torn down in order to stop a fire from spreading throughout a city Two Treatises 2. Locke handles this by explaining that the rationale for this power is that general rules cannot cover all possible cases and that inflexible adherence to the rules would be detrimental to the public good and that the legislature is not always in session to render a judgment 2. The relationship between the executive and the legislature depends on the specific constitution.

If, however, the chief executive has a veto, the result would be a stalemate between them. Locke describes a similar stalemate in the case where the chief executive has the power to call parliament and can thus prevent it from meeting by refusing to call it into session. Locke assumes that people, when they leave the state of nature, create a government with some sort of constitution that specifies which entities are entitled to exercise which powers. Locke also assumes that these powers will be used to protect the rights of the people and to promote the public good. In cases where there is a dispute between the people and the government about whether the government is fulfilling its obligations, there is no higher human authority to which one can appeal.

The only appeal left, for Locke, is the appeal to God. His central claims are that government should not use force to try to bring people to the true religion and that religious societies are voluntary organizations that have no right to use coercive power over their own members or those outside their group. One recurring line of argument that Locke uses is explicitly religious.

Locke argues that neither the example of Jesus nor the teaching of the New Testament gives any indication that force is a proper way to bring people to salvation. He also frequently points out what he takes to be clear evidence of hypocrisy, namely that those who are so quick to persecute others for small differences in worship or doctrine are relatively unconcerned with much more obvious moral sins that pose an even greater threat to their eternal state.

In addition to these and similar religious arguments, Locke gives three reasons that are more philosophical in nature for barring governments from using force to encourage people to adopt religious beliefs Works — This argument resonates with the structure of argument used so often in the Two Treatises to establish the natural freedom and equality of mankind. There is no command in the Bible telling magistrates to bring people to the true faith, and people could not consent to such a goal for government because it is not possible for people, at will, to believe what the magistrate tells them to believe.

Their beliefs are a function of what they think is true, not what they will. Many of the magistrates of the world believe religions that are false. If force is indirectly useful in bringing people to the true faith, then Locke has not provided a persuasive argument. Waldron pointed out that this argument blocks only one particular reason for persecution, not all reasons.

Web hosting by Somee.com