HL INTRO *** The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion by Jonathan Haidt

Note: INTRO@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Tema del libro: xchè è così difficile andare d'accordo? Perchè gli altri ci sembrano sempre tanto ipocriti? Ci si occupa di religione e politica e si spiega come convincere l'altro e convertirlo... Tesi: la ns mente è ossessionata dall' essere nel giusto e crede di esserlo. Tutto ciò genera un duplice effetto: 1) effetto benigno: cooperazione e 2) effetto maligno: conflitti morali... La metafora: la mente raziocinante è come un guidatore di elefanti: può indirizzare il bestione ma ben poco... Principio 1: l'intuizione etica precede il ragionamento etico (che è una razionalizzazione)... Principio 2: l'etica va ben al di là del danno e della correttezza, questo xchè nella dimensione etica noi cerchiamo la ns realizzazione. Metafora: la mente virtuosa è una lingua con 6 sensi, noi in occidente ne sfruttiamo giusto un paio (danno e sofferenza) ma ce ne sono altri (autorità, santità, lealtà)... Principio 3: la moralità ci unisce e ci acceca... Metafora: l'uomo è un pò scimmia un pò ape. C'è una competizione individuale dove ipocriti ed egoisti eccellono ma c'è anche una competizione tra gruppi dove eroismo,altruismo ma anche genocidi e guerra trovano spazio... Religione: è un modo x dare coesione morale al gruppo nella competizione tra gruppi, nn un virus parassita come proposto da Dawkins... I gruppi morali più importanti: sinistra, destra, leberali. Ognuno di noi sceglie il suo gruppo e resta cieco agli altri, qs resta il messaggio centrale... Edit

“Can we all get along?” That appeal was made famous on May 1, 1992, by Rodney King,Read more at location 65

Note: STARE INSIEME Edit

acquittalRead more at location 67

Add a note

This book is about why it’s so hard for us to get along.Read more at location 77

Add a note

why we are so easily divided into hostile groups,Read more at location 79

Note: PERCHÈ IL CONFLITTO? Edit

By the end of the tour, I hope to have given you a new way to think about two of the most important, vexing, and divisive topics in human life: politics and religion.Read more at location 84

Note: DUE CONFLITTI Edit

BORN TO BE RIGHTEOUSRead more at location 92

Note: TITOLO Edit

human nature is not just intrinsically moral, it’s also intrinsically moralistic, critical, and judgmental.Read more at location 95

Note: MORALISTI INNATI Edit

self-righteous, which means “convinced of one’s own righteousness, especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others; narrowly moralistic and intolerant.”Read more at location 103

Note: AUTOCONVINCERSI Edit

obsession with righteousness (leading inevitably to self-righteousness) is the normal human condition. It is a feature of our evolutionary design, not a bug or errorRead more at location 105

Note: NORMALE CONDIZIONE Edit

Part I is about the first principle: Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second.Read more at location 114

Note: PARTE I Edit

If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you’ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you.Read more at location 117

Note: VERITÀ Edit

don’t take people’s moral arguments at face value. They’re mostly post hoc constructionsRead more at location 120

Note: RAZIONALIZZAZIONI Edit

the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant. The rider is our conscious reasoning—theRead more at location 122

Note: METAFORA DELL ELEFANTE Edit

I developed this metaphor in my last book, The Happiness Hypothesis,Read more at location 125

Add a note

it seems like everyone (else) is a hypocriteRead more at location 126

Note: IPOCRISIA Edit

I’ll also use the metaphor to show you how you can better persuade people who seem unresponsive to reason.Read more at location 128

Note: COME EVANGELIZZARE Edit

Part II is about the second principle of moral psychology, which is that there’s more to morality than harm and fairness.Read more at location 129

Note: PARTE II Edit

righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors.Read more at location 130

Add a note

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.Read more at location 131

Note: LE DIMENSIONI DELLA MORALE Edit

politicians on the right have a built-in advantageRead more at location 134

Note: I VANTAGGI DELLA DESTRA Edit

Part III is about the third principle: Morality binds and blinds.Read more at location 135

Note: PARTE III Edit

human beings are 90 percent chimp and 10 percent bee.Read more at location 136

Note: SCIMMIE E API Edit

Individuals compete with individuals within every group,Read more at location 137

Note: COMPETIZIONE TRA INDIVIDUI Edit

But human nature was also shaped as groups competed with other groups.Read more at location 139

Note: COMPETIZIONE TRA GRUPPI Edit

Darwin’s ideas about group selection fell out of favor in the 1960s, but recent discoveries are putting his ideas back into play, and the implications are profound. We’re not always selfish hypocrites. 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,Read more at location 140

Note: GROUP SELECTION Edit

Our bee-like nature facilitates altruism, heroism, war, and genocide.Read more at location 144

Note: ALTRUISMO E GENOCIDIO Edit

I’ll show that our “higher nature” allows us to be profoundly altruistic, but that altruism is mostly aimed at members of our own groups. I’ll show that religion is (probably) an evolutionary adaptation for binding groups together and helping them to create communities with a shared morality. It is not a virus or a parasite, as some scientists (the “New Atheists”) have argued in recent years.Read more at location 145

Add a note

And I’ll use this perspective to explain why some people are conservative, others are liberal (or progressive), and still others become libertarians. People bind themselves into political teams that share moral narratives. Once they accept a particular narrative, they become blind to alternative moral worlds.Read more at location 148

Note: RELIGIONE. CONTRO I NUOVI ATEI Edit

In the coming chapters I’ll draw on the latest research in neuroscience, genetics, social psychology, and evolutionary modeling, but the take-home message of the book is ancient. It is the realization that we are all self-righteous hypocrites:Read more at location 156

Note: DISCIPLINE MODERNE MESSAGGIO ANTICO E

La guerra ci rende più alteuisti

Can War Foster Cooperation? http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/06/can-war-foster-cooperation.html

SAGGIO Quattro storie disgustose

Disgustose sì, ma… forse è meglio evitare ogni spoiler.

Le propone Jonathan Haidt per testare la vostra maturità nei giudizi etici.

La prima:

“A family’s dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner. Nobody saw them do this…”

Approvate, condannate o siete moralmente indifferenti al comportamento tenuto dalla famiglia?

La seconda:

“A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it…”

Approvate, condannate o siete moralmente indifferenti al comportamento dell’uomo?

La terza:

“A woman is cleaning out her closet, and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom…”

Approvate, condannate o siete moralmente indifferenti al comportamento della donna?

La quarta:

“Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it ok for them to make love?”

Approvate, condannate o siete moralmente indifferenti al comportamento dei due fratelli?

Attenzione perché c’è un trucco evidente che siamo sempre tentati di sorvolare.

Il trucco ve lo posso anche svelare ma per il dettaglio delle implicazioni devo rinviare al libro The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion di Jonathan Haidt

When the Basic Income Guarantee Meets the Political Process Jim Manzi

• When the Basic Income Guarantee Meets the Political Process Jim Manzi
• reminds me strongly of the lawyer’s proverbial “in the alternative”argument about a dog biting a neighbor: “Your honor, my client doesn’t own a dog; even if he did own a dog, then it could not have bitten this man; and even if he did own a dog that bit this man, then it must have been provoked.”
• He claims that social science evidence indicates that it not clear that a BIG would result in a reduction in work effort. But he argues that even if it did, this would not necessarily be a bad thing.
• It is fairly extraordinary to claim that the government could guarantee every adult in America an income even if they did zero work of any kind, and that somehow this would not reduce work effort.
• But we have scientific gold standard evidence that runs exactly the other way. A series of randomized experiments offered a version of Zwolinski’s proposal between 1968 and 1980. These tested a wide variety of program variants among the urban and rural poor, in better and worse macroeconomic periods, and in geographies from New Jersey to Seattle. They consistently found that the tested programsreduce the number of hours worked
• There was a further series of more than 30 randomized experiments conducted around the time of the welfare debates of the 1990s.
• we can state with confidence that Zwolinski’s proposal would lead to fewer work hours in America.
• I will simply note that the moral intuitions of the American electorate appear to be very negative about a BIG.
• compared to the current welfare system a BIG would be less bureaucratic, cheaper, reduce rent-seeking, and be less paternalistic.
• But in that case, the real comparison is not between a theoretical BIG and a theoretical means-tested welfare system; it is between an academic idea that has not yet been subjected to lobbying and legislation, on the one hand, and real laws that are the product of a democratic process, on the other.
• This points to what I think is the most serious flaw in Zwolinski’s argument: He assumes that the ideal of no government welfare is politically unobtainable, but simultaneously assumes that we could successfully pass and enforce a constitutional amendment enshrining a BIG and nothing but a BIG
• Zwolinski presents no evidence that there is any prospect that such a set of changes would be politically feasible in our lifetimes.
• I’ve called the first “liberty-as-goal” libertarianism and the second “liberty-as-means” libertarianism.
• Hayek, for example, cannot reasonably be construed as supporting an unconditional income for all citizens.