The Value of Righteousness

The quality of self-righteousness is treated as very negative, but could it have had a positive, necessary impact on human social and cultural evolution? Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at the University of Virginia, has written a book which argues just that: The Righteous Mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion

You argue that the key to the partisan nature of US politics today is to understand the concept of "righteousness". Why is that?

In its original meaning, righteous means just, upright and virtuous. I'm using the word in a colloquial sense: self-righteous, judgemental, moralistic. I believe our minds evolved to be moralistic. This may sound lamentable, especially to those of us who think we should be less judgemental.

But the evolutionary story I tell in my book is one where judgementalism- the ability to create moral matrices and punish, shame and ostracise those who don't behave rightly- was in fact the great breakthrough. ...


What about extreme groups like the Tea Party?

Liberals have difficulty understanding the Tea Party because they think it is a bunch of selfish racists. But I think the Tea Party is driven in large part by concerns about fairness. It's not fairness as equality of outcomes, it's fairness as karma- the idea that good deeds will lead to good outcomes and bad deeds will lead to suffering.

Many conservatives believe the Democratic party has been the anti-karma party since the 60s. It's the party that says, you got pregnant? Don't worry, have an abortion. You got addicted to drugs? Don't worry, we'll give you methadone. It's the party that absolves you from moral irresponsibility.

The Tea Partiers don't hate all government: just government they see as subverting karma, subverting moral responsibility. This hatred is, I think, a derivative of their love of proportionality. They're perfectly happy with social security, a retirement scheme which Franklin D. Roosevelt deliberately portrayed as a form of fairness, you pay in and you get out.

Source: New Scientist, March 3, 2012

I think that Jonathan Haidt has a potential point, but if you look more closely at what's going his potential point disappears in a puff of self-righteousness. It's not righteousness that's driving the Tea Party, but self-righteousness.

We can start to see that more clearly but looking at whether this alleged concern with "fairness" is being applied fairly. Do they object to people being able to eat whatever they want then being absolved of moral irresponsibility by having access to medicines and treatment to deal with the consequences of their diet choices? No. Do they object to people polluting the environment then not having to pay for cleaning it up? I haven't seen it.

We could go on and on like that, finding numerous examples where the Tea Party conservatives aren't interested in "fairness" or karma. So what separates these issues from the ones Jonathan Haidt cites? I think there is a pretty clear pattern: the "fairness" is only applied to the actions or contexts involving women and minorities; those where "fairness" is never even considered are issues and contexts involving men, Christians, those with significant economic power, etc.

Thus in the end the practical effect of an alleged commitment to "fairness" is to reinforce the power and privileges of those who already have power and who have traditionally held power -- and at the expense of minorities who are fighting for equality. Which, of course, is profoundly unfair.

Jonathan Haidt reportedly started out more liberal when he began his research behind this book, then became more moderate afterwards due to being swayed by the concern for "fairness" outlined above. Because of what this alleged "fairness" really means, though, it sounds to me that he was really swayed by the idea that it's "unfair" for those with the most power and money to not use their power and money however they see fit but it is "unfair" for those with the least to live as freely as others or make any demands on society's resources.