The Righteous Mind Epub Download Gratis
Sibyl Piccuillo
The righteous mind by Jonathan Haidt pdf free download. People who devote their lives to studying something often come to believe that the object of their fascination is the key to understanding everything. Books have been published in recent years on the transformative role in human history played by cooking, mothering, war even salt. This is one of those books.
It is not too much to require that what the wisest of mankind, those whoare best entitled to trust their own judgment, find necessary to warranttheir relying on it, should be submitted to by that miscellaneouscollection of a few wise and many foolish individuals, called thepublic. The most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, evenat the canonisation of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a"devil's advocate." The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admittedto posthumous honours, until all that the devil could say against him isknown and weighed. If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permittedto be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of itstruth as they now do. The beliefs[Pg 39] which we have most warrant for, haveno safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world toprove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is acceptedand the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but wehave done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; wehave neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reachingus: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a bettertruth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it;and in the meantime we may rely on having attained such approach totruth, as is possible in our own day. This is the amount of certaintyattainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it.
But the strongest of all the arguments against the interference of thepublic with purely personal conduct, is that when it does interfere, theodds are that it interferes wrongly, and in the wrong place. Onquestions of social morality, of duty to others, the opinion of thepublic, that is, of an overruling majority, though often wrong, islikely to be still oftener right; because on such questions they areonly required to judge of their own interests; of the manner in whichsome mode of conduct, if allowed to be practised, would affectthemselves. But the opinion of a similar majority, imposed as a law onthe minority, on questions of[Pg 158] self-regarding conduct, is quite aslikely to be wrong as right; for in these cases public opinion means, atthe best, some people's opinion of what is good or bad for other people;while very often it does not even mean that; the public, with the mostperfect indifference, passing over the pleasure or convenience of thosewhose conduct they censure, and considering only their own preference.There are many who consider as an injury to themselves any conduct whichthey have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings;as a religious bigot, when charged with disregarding the religiousfeelings of others, has been known to retort that they disregard hisfeelings, by persisting in their abominable worship or creed. But thereis no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, andthe feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no more thanbetween the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of theright owner to keep it. And a person's taste is as much his own peculiarconcern as his opinion or his purse. It is easy for any one to imaginean ideal public, which leaves the freedom and choice of individuals inall uncertain matters undisturbed, and only requires them to abstainfrom modes of conduct which universal experience has condemned. Butwhere[Pg 159] has there been seen a public which set any such limit to itscensorship? or when does the public trouble itself about universalexperience? In its interferences with personal conduct it is seldomthinking of anything but the enormity of acting or feeling differentlyfrom itself; and this standard of judgment, thinly disguised, is held upto mankind as the dictate of religion and philosophy, by nine-tenths ofall moralists and speculative writers. These teach that things are rightbecause they are right; because we feel them to be so. They tell us tosearch in our own minds and hearts for laws of conduct binding onourselves and on all others. What can the poor public do but apply theseinstructions, and make their own personal feelings of good and evil, ifthey are tolerably unanimous in them, obligatory on all the world?
I have already observed that, owing to the absence of any recognisedgeneral principles, liberty is often granted where it should bewithheld, as well as withheld where it should be granted; and one of thecases in which, in the modern European world, the sentiment of libertyis the strongest, is a case where, in my view, it is altogethermisplaced. A person should be free to do as he likes in his ownconcerns; but he ought not to be free to do as he likes in acting foranother, under the pretext that the affairs of another are his ownaffairs. The State, while it respects the liberty of each in whatspecially regards himself, is bound to maintain a vigilant control overhis exercise of any power which it allows him to possess over others.This[Pg 199] obligation is almost entirely disregarded in the case of thefamily relations, a case, in its direct influence on human happiness,more important than all others taken together. The almost despotic powerof husbands over wives need not be enlarged upon here because nothingmore is needed for the complete removal of the evil, than that wivesshould have the same rights, and should receive the protection of law inthe same manner, as all other persons; and because, on this subject, thedefenders of established injustice do not avail themselves of the pleaof liberty, but stand forth openly as the champions of power. It is inthe case of children, that misapplied notions of liberty are a realobstacle to the fulfilment by the State of its duties. One would almostthink that a man's children were supposed to be literally, and notmetaphorically, a part of himself, so jealous is opinion of the smallestinterference of law with his absolute and exclusive control over them;more jealous than of almost any interference with his own freedom ofaction: so much less do the generality of mankind value liberty thanpower. Consider, for example, the case of education. Is it not almost aself-evident axiom, that the State should require and compel theeducation, up to a certain standard, of every human being who is bornits[Pg 200] citizen? Yet who is there that is not afraid to recognise andassert this truth? Hardly any one indeed will deny that it is one of themost sacred duties of the parents (or, as law and usage now stand, thefather), after summoning a human being into the world, to give to thatbeing an education fitting him to perform his part well in life towardsothers and towards himself. But while this is unanimously declared to bethe father's duty, scarcely anybody, in this country, will bear to hearof obliging him to perform it. Instead of his being required to make anyexertion or sacrifice for securing education to the child, it is left tohis choice to accept it or not when it is provided gratis! It stillremains unrecognised, that to bring a child into existence without afair prospect of being able, not only to provide food for its body, butinstruction and training for its mind, is a moral crime, both againstthe unfortunate offspring and against society; and that if the parentdoes not fulfil this obligation, the State ought to see it fulfilled, atthe charge, as far as possible, of the parent.
Baseek was old, and already he had come to know the increasing valour of thedogs it had been his wont to bully. Bitter experiences these, which, perforce,he swallowed, calling upon all his wisdom to cope with them. In the old days hewould have sprung upon White Fang in a fury of righteous wrath. But now hiswaning powers would not permit such a course. He bristled fiercely and lookedominously across the shin-bone at White Fang. And White Fang, resurrectingquite a deal of the old awe, seemed to wilt and to shrink in upon himself andgrow small, as he cast about in his mind for a way to beat a retreat not tooinglorious.
A strict enquiry was made under the guidance of theLiberal Party to ascertain what degree of complicity (ifany) attached to Mr. Chamberlain, or to Mr. Rhodes.This enquiry took a long time, and in the end arrived at nodefinite conclusion; and the affair gradually died down. Itleft behind it, however, a long succession of darkeningconsequences. British reputation throughout the world hadreceived a grievous wound. The Dutch hurled CecilRhodes from power in the Cape Colony. The Britishnation took the German Emperor's telegram as a revelationof a hostile mood, and they never forgot it. The Emperorfor his part, seeing himself completely powerless in the faceof British sea power, turned his mind to the construction ofa German fleet. The entire course of South African politicswas turned away from peaceful channels. The Britishcolonists looked to the Imperial Government for aid; andthe Dutch race throughout the sub-continent rallied aroundthe standards of the two Boer republics. The BritishGovernment gathered themselves together after their113disastrous set-back, while the Transvaal taxed the Outlandersall the more and began to arm heavily out of the proceeds.All the causes of the quarrel were inflamed, and their trialwas referred to a far more important court.
aa06259810