Comparing The Righteous Mind And Moral Tribes By Johnathon Haidt

Both The Righteous Mind and Moral Tribes show different perspectives on morality. “The Righteous Mind,” by Johnathon Haidt, emphasizes the role of intuition and ethical principles in shaping bias. Whereas, “Moral Tribes” by Joshua Greene, delves into how utilitarianism can address conflicts among diverse cultural beliefs. While taking different approaches, both authors dive into the complexities of moral reasoning, and how various factors can influence decisions. Each author perceives morality in different ways. Johnathon Haidt in the book Righteous Mind judges six major moral foundations which are Care-Harm, Fairness-Cheating, Loyalty-Betrayal, Authority-Subversion, Sanctity-Degradation, and Liberty-Oppression. He discusses each topic and

The first one is empathizing. People who prefer fiction and people who enjoy conversations about random individuals are placed in this category. The second is synthesizing. This is where individuals are good at figuring out how machines work and are amazing at reading maps and instructions. If the two traits are crossed, everyone will be placed somewhere. According to Baron-Cohen, autism occurs when genes and prenatal facts combine to produce a brain where synthesizing is at a high level and empathizing is fairly lower than the average. Immanuel Kent and Jermey Benthman were both perceived to have autism and Asperger’s syndrome. They both suggested that utilitarianism and Kantian deontology were the ideal moral theories. They were known to show less to no emotion in their work. In Moral Tribes, The Tragedy of the Commons is where individuals who are self-interested deplete a shared resource, leading to negative consequences for the community. The concept explores the conflict between individuals and interests in situations involving common resources. The idea that moral decision-making in such scenarios requires a framework that considers both individual and collective well-being is