Introduction "Can we all get along?" That appeal was made famous on May 1, 1992, by Rodney King, a black man who had been beaten nearly to death by four Los Angeles police officers a year earlier. The entire nation had seen a videotape of the beating, so when a jury failed to convict the officers, their acquittal triggered widespread outrage and six days of rioting in Los Angeles. Fifty-three people were killed and more than seven thousand buildings were torched. Much of the mayhem was carried live; news cameras tracked the action from helicopters circling overhead. After a particularly horrific act of violence against a white truck driver, King was moved to make his appeal for peace. King''s appeal is now so overused that it has become cultural kitsch, a catchphrase1 more often said for laughs than as a serious plea for mutual understanding. I therefore hesitated to use King''s words as the opening line of this book, but I decided to go ahead, for two reasons. The first is because most Americans nowadays are asking King''s question not about race relations but about political relations and the collapse of cooperation across party lines.

Many Americans feel as though the nightly news from Washington is being sent to us from helicopters circling over the city, delivering dispatches from the war zone. The second reason I decided to open this book with an overused phrase is because King followed it up with something lovely, something rarely quoted. As he stumbled through his television interview, fighting back tears and often repeating himself, he found these words: "Please, we can get along here. We all can get along. I mean, we''re all stuck here for a while. Let''s try to work it out." This book is about why it''s so hard for us to get along. We are indeed all stuck here for a while, so let''s at least do what we can to understand why we are so easily divided into hostile groups, each one certain of its righteousness.

### 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. I study moral psychology, and I''m going to make the case that morality is the extraordinary human capacity that made civilization possible. I don''t mean to imply that cooking, mothering, war, and salt were not also necessary, but in this book I''m going to take you on a tour of human nature and history from the perspective of moral psychology. By the end of the tour, I hope to have given you a new way to think about two of the most important, vexing, and divisive topics in human life: politics and religion. Etiquette books tell us not to discuss these topics in polite company, but I say go ahead.

Politics and religion are both expressions of our underlying moral psychology, and an understanding of that psychology can help to bring people together. My goal in this book is to drain some of the heat, anger, and divisiveness out of these topics and replace them with awe, wonder, and curiosity. We are downright lucky that we evolved this complex moral psychology that allowed our species to burst out of the forests and savannas and into the delights, comforts, and extraordinary peacefulness of modern societies in just a few thousand years. My hope is that this book will make conversations about morality, politics, and religion more common, more civil, and more fun, even in mixed company. My hope is that it will help us to get along. BORN TO BE RIGHTEOUS I could have titled this book The Moral Mind to convey the sense that the human mind is designed to "do" morality, just as it''s designed to do language, sexuality, music, and many other things described in popular books reporting the latest scientific findings. But I chose the title The Righteous Mind to convey the sense that human nature is not just intrinsically moral, it''s also intrinsically moralistic, critical, and judgmental. The word righteous comes from the old Norse word rettviss and the old English word rihtwis , both of which mean "just, upright, virtuous.

" This meaning has been carried into the modern English words righteous and righteousness , although nowadays those words have strong religious connotations because they are usually used to translate the Hebrew word tzedek. Tzedek is a common word in the Hebrew Bible, often used to describe people who act in accordance with God''s wishes, but it is also an attribute of God and of God''s judgment of people (which is often harsh but always thought to be just). The linkage of righteousness and judgmentalism is captured in some modern definitions of righteous , such as "arising from an outraged sense of justice, morality, or fair play." The link also appears in the term self- righteous , which means "convinced of one''s own righteousness, especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others; narrowly moralistic and intolerant." I want to show you that an obsession with righteousness (leading inevitably to self- righteousness) is the normal human condition. It is a feature of our evolutionary design, not a bug or error that crept into minds that would otherwise be objective and rational. Our righteous minds made it possible for human beings--but no other animals--to produce large cooperative groups, tribes, and nations without the glue of kinship. But at the same time, our righteous minds guarantee that our cooperative groups will always be cursed by moralistic strife.

Some degree of conflict among groups may even be necessary for the health and development of any society. When I was a teenager I wished for world peace, but now I yearn for a world in which competing ideologies are kept in balance, systems of accountability keep us all from getting away with too much, and fewer people believe that righteous ends justify violent means. Not a very romantic wish, but one that we might actually achieve. WHAT LIES AHEAD This book has three parts, which you can think of as three separate books--except that each one depends on the one before it. Each part presents one major principle of moral psychology. Part I is about the first principle: Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second. Moral intuitions arise automatically and almost instantaneously, long before moral reasoning has a chance to get started, and those first intuitions tend to drive our later reasoning. If you think that moral reasoning is something we do to figure out the truth, you''ll be constantly frustrated by how foolish, biased, and illogical people become when they disagree with you.

But if you think about moral reasoning as a skill we humans evolved to further our social agendas--to justify our own actions and to defend the teams we belong to--then things will make a lot more sense. Keep your eye on the intuitions, and don''t take people''s moral arguments at face value. They''re mostly post hoc constructions made up on the fly, crafted to advance one or more strategic objectives. The central metaphor of these four chapters is that the mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider''s job is to serve the elephant. The rider is our conscious reasoning--the stream of words and images of which we are fully aware. The elephant is the other 99 percent of mental processes--the ones that occur outside of awareness but that actually govern most of our behavior. I developed this metaphor in my last book, The Happiness Hypothesis , where I described how the rider and elephant work together, sometimes poorly, as we stumble through life in search of meaning and connection. In this book I''ll use the metaphor to solve puzzles such as why it seems like everyone (else) is a hypocrite and why political partisans are so willing to believe outrageous lies and conspiracy theories.

I''ll also use the metaphor to show you how you can better persuade people who seem unresponsive to reason. Part II is about the second principle of moral psychology, which is that there''s more to morality than harm and fairness . The central metaphor of these four chapters is that the righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors . Secular Western moralities are like cuisines that try to activate just one or two of these receptors--either concerns about harm and suffering, or concerns about fairness and injustice. But people have so many other powerful moral intuitions, such as those related to liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. I''ll explain where these six taste receptors come from, how they form the basis of the world''s many moral cuisines, and why politicians on the right have a built- in advantage when it comes to cooking meals that voters like. Part III is about the third principle: Morality binds and blinds . The central metaphor of these four chapters is that human beings are 90 percent chimp and percent bee .

Human nature was produced by natural selection working at two levels simultaneously. Individuals compete with individuals within every group, and we are the descendants of primates who excelled at that competition. This gives us the ugly side of our nature, the one that is usually featured in books about our evolutionary origins. We are indeed selfish hypocrites so skilled at putting on a show of virtue that we fool even ourselves. But human nature was also shaped as groups competed with other groups. As Darwin said long ago, the mos.