Exploring Moral Nihilism: Insights from Jonathan Haidt's Theories
Written on
Chapter 1: The Foundations of Morality
Imagine a man who frequents the supermarket weekly to purchase a chicken. Prior to cooking it, he engages in a bizarre act: he has sexual intercourse with the bird before preparing it for dinner. This peculiar behavior is known only to him, and no one else is adversely affected by it. The question arises: is this man morally wrong?
In "The Righteous Mind," moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt delves into the foundational aspects of human morality. His aim is to present morality as a rich and multifaceted concept. By introducing a thought experiment early in his book, Haidt challenges readers to consider how emotions and instincts form the bedrock of moral reasoning.
Through the subsequent chapters, Haidt articulates two key principles of moral psychology: emotions precede rational thought, and morality encompasses more than just harm and fairness.
Section 1.1: The Role of Emotions in Morality
Haidt and his team conducted numerous social experiments, demonstrating that our moral judgments are often driven by our immediate emotional reactions to situations. For instance, most people would feel a visceral revulsion towards the man engaging in sexual acts with a dead chicken. Subsequently, they might concoct various justifications for their disgust, which Haidt terms “post-hoc fabrication.”
His first principle effectively challenges the long-standing intellectual stance of rationalism—the belief that moral dilemmas can be resolved purely through logical reasoning. Haidt emphasizes the importance of emotions and intuitions in the realm of moral philosophy.
Section 1.2: Expanding the Moral Framework
In addition to his first principle, Haidt introduces a second: morality involves more than merely considerations of harm and fairness. Those familiar with Western moral philosophy may note a predominant focus on these two aspects, often encapsulated in utilitarianism (concerned with harm) and deontology (focused on fairness).
Haidt's assertion that morality is broader may surprise some. He identifies at least four additional foundations that contribute to our “moral tastebuds.” These include “loyalty,” “authority,” “sanctity,” and “liberty.” Each of these themes enhances our moral complexity and elucidates why some moral judgments are particularly challenging to navigate.
For instance, the “sanctity” foundation helps explain the instinctive aversion many feel towards the man’s behavior with the chicken. Yet, due to a lack of a coherent ethical framework to rationalize this disgust, individuals may find themselves, in Haidt's words, morally dumbfounded.
Chapter 2: Moral Psychology and Relativism
Haidt's intriguing argument expands in later chapters, where he examines why diverse groups hold drastically different moral commitments. He posits that, given the complexity of morality, individuals prioritize different moral foundations. For example, conservatives may place greater importance on “loyalty,” “sanctity,” and “authority” compared to liberals, who might focus more on “care” and “fairness.”
Haidt's perspective aligns with what moral philosophers label “descriptive moral relativism,” acknowledging the empirical reality of moral disagreement across societies. While he refrains from labeling himself a relativist, he identifies as a pluralist, advocating that values are multifaceted.
Section 2.1: The Limits of Moral Psychology
For those who believe science can illuminate moral questions—like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins—the inquiry remains: can science dictate what is right or wrong? Haidt acknowledges that moral psychology can illuminate the psychological underpinnings of moral reasoning, yet it cannot determine moral correctness.
Moral psychology reveals why humans have instinctive aversions to certain actions and how we form moral reasoning, often justifying these intuitions post-facto. However, it does not provide absolute answers regarding the morality of these actions.
Section 2.2: Metaethical Moral Relativism
If we delve deeper into Haidt’s arguments, we encounter the concept of metaethical moral relativism, which asserts that the validity of moral judgments is not universal but contingent on cultural contexts.
Haidt recounts his experiences in India, where he encountered ethical standards that felt alien to him, illustrating the divergence in moral perspectives across cultures. For example, addressing one’s parents by their first names is typically considered disrespectful in many Asian societies, yet may not hold the same weight in Western contexts.