there are two questions. Only one questions has to be chosen and then write an essay about it. I mean writing an essay about either 1 or 2
- In what ways does Jonathan Haidt in the Righteous Mind agree with Hume’sand Glaucon’s positions and in what ways does he disagree with them? For each case, explain some of the main research he uses to support his views. Are these positions convincing? Or could his research or findings be challenged? If so, how?
- In the Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt argues against the idea that rationality is the main attribute we use when we make moral judgements. This is part of what he calls the rationalist delusion. However, the fact that the first impulse for making a moral judgement comes from the emotions does not mean the judgement is correct. (In other words, the fact that the elephant immediately leans to one side (or another) of a moral dilemma does not mean that side is correct. Haidt recognizes the importance of exploratory over confirmatory thought and of some individuals challenging the reasoning of others to arrive at truths (or to produce good public policy). Could this mean that reason still is what must justify what is moral? What could Kantians say to support the view that morality comes from reason and what could they say to Haidt claims that Hume is correct?