Summer Reading: The Righteous Mind I

Anonymous

Mon, 07/09/2012 - 12:04

Book Reviews

Jonathan Haidt's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/03073…; target="”_blank”">The
Righteous Mind</a>: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and
Religion (Pantheon, 2012) is a book that does not, from its
title, appear to have much value for government ethics. But Haidt's
approach to morality, and his look at how people approach morality,
provides a lot of food for thought about government ethics, enough to fill nine blog posts.

Moral Systems 
You can see the value immediately through Haidt's definition of
morality in terms of "moral systems":<ul>

Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms,
practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved
psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate
self-interest and make cooperative societies possible.</ul>

This is an unusual, but both excellent and useful definition, with
one exception, which Haidt recognizes. Because the definition is
focused on what morality does rather than what its contents are, it
includes both "good" and "bad" moralities. In terms of government ethics, it
includes both a healthy ethics environment and a very poor ethics
environment. 
 
This is, however, a useful way to look at ethics, because in a poor ethics
environment there are values, norms, practices, identities,
institutions, and psychological mechanisms that make its ethics what they are.
Such an environment cannot be improved unless all of these things
are recognized, generally acknowledged, and dealt with. Loyalties
must be recognized as misplaced. Much of what is considered
confidential must be recognized as a kind of secrecy, and replaced
with openness. Special "courtesies" and other unwritten rules that favor
officials' associates must be openly discussed, criticized, and
replaced with written rules that are fair. Fiefdoms and machines
must be recognized for what they are so that they can be changed
and, with respect to fiefdoms, effectively overseen. And blind spots
must be dealt with through training, independent advice, and ongoing
discussion of ethics matters. 
 
One of the things we can learn from Haidt's view of morality is that
one moral system must be replaced by another. Chipping away will do
little more than make common practices go underground. No matter
what is done, there will be a moral system. No institution can exist
without one. But the moral system spoken of in public is not
necessarily the one that exists in reality. The more different they
are, the worse the ethics environment. This is why it is so
important to have open discussion of ethics issues. Only in this way
can the real values, norms, and practices become known to the
public. As long as they are hidden and denied, they cannot change, any more than an alcoholic in denial can change. 
 
Real norms and practices will not become public unless people inside and outside government feel safe. The misuse of power
to intimidate is the most damaging practice in a poor ethics
environment, because it enables all the rest. It is the bad flip
side of moral courage, which is what enables all good, open conduct
and the reporting of misconduct (see <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/files/lgep1-0%20-%20Robert%20Wechsler.htm#Rep…; target="”_blank”">the relevant subsection of my book</a> Local Government Ethics Programs). 
 
Self-Righteousness 
"Righteousness" was originally a positive word, referring to a
quality of goodness. But it is a word that is now rarely used
outside a Christian religious context. The word "righteous" is used
primarily in the negative sense, in the word "self-righteous," that
is, holier than thou, acting in a way that is judgmental of others
(like I do too often in this blog). 
 
The difference between these two words is reflected in the
difference between "moral" and "moralistic." And it is no accident
that the negative words are used more often, because, as Haidt
wrote, "human nature ... is intrinsically moralistic, critical, and
judgmental." We naturally form groups that are critical of and
antagonistic to other groups, whether they are nations, religions,
races, universities, political parties, or even local governments.
Each group is self-righteous, considering itself better than the
others. And "better" means better in terms of the values the group
happens to value most. 
 
Entrepreneurs value success, and look down on laziness. An oppressed
minority values martyrdom, and looks down on oppressors. Liberals
value compassion, and look down on those who appear to act without
compassion. Conservatives value tradition, patriotism, and hard
work, and look down on those who seek change, criticize the nation,
and live off the government. 
 
But what about local governments? Those with a good ethics
environment value openness, fairness, citizen participation, and the
responsible handling of conflicts of interest. They look down on unprofessional
officials who are in it for themselves, who engage in favoritism and
nepotism, who try to keep things secret and intimidate people from
speaking out or participating in the government. 
 
Local governments with a poor ethics environment value loyalty,
secrecy, and the misuse of office for the benefit of officials and
those with whom they have special relationships. They look down on those
who betray the organization by reporting misconduct or making
information public. Sometimes they even look down on citizens who
don't want to go along with the government's common practices, who
demand oversight and accountability, or simply want to know how
their money is being spent. 
 
What is worth recognizing here is that the same mechanism that has
allowed mankind to prosper through the creation of groups whose
members trust each other is also behind the creation of city
machines, agency fiefdoms, old boy networks, racial and ethnic
conflict, and partisan discord. And this is only at the local level.
Most serious of all the results of the group trust mechanism is war. 
 
Trust is central to government ethics. And yet the dynamics of trust
among individuals in a government organization sometimes contributes
to the undermining of the public's trust in their local government.
The problem here is that a local government organization in a
democracy is not supposed to be like other groups. It is not
supposed to be opposed to any other organization or look down on
anyone. It is supposed to embody, manage, and represent a community.
Its values and norms are supposed to be not the values and norms of
the community, although these are important, but rather the values
and norms of our democracy: fairness, responsibility,
openness. 
 
If the community is divided, that doesn't mean the government should
support the divisions. It should bring people together. If the
community consists of haves and have-nots, that doesn't mean the
government should help the haves and let the have-nots take care of
themselves. But, most important for government ethics, the trust
that a local government values should not be the trust among its
officials, although this is valuable, but the trust of the community
in its officials. If this is given priority, there will be no
closed, exclusive government group with values inimical to
democracy. There will be an open government that is inclusive,
responsible, and fair. 
 
Continue with <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/summer-reading-righteous-mind-ii-indi… second post on this book</a>. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

Summer Reading: The Righteous Mind I

Tags

Share This Page