Time Warp: Back to Ch.4 (aka I highly disagree with Johnathan Haidt)

Honestly so far in this book even including the subsequent chapters, I have found myself most disagreeing with what Johnathon Haidt says in both Ch.4 "Morality Binds and Blinds" and his TEDTalk. I will come out and say it is because I am a devout, practicing Catholic. I will agree however, that in a way having a moral code does bind you in the sense that when you as an individual depart from it you tend to feel hypocritical. Yes, when people latch on to some attitude toward morality that is fundamental is can blind them, but that is not the issue with morality itself, but rather with the person practicing it. I want to address a  first what the book says (though the book mentions the TedTalk I will address that separately) or rather what Johnathan Haidt says in I'm Right and You're An Idiot. 

While I understand that Hoggan summarizes what he probably heard from Haidt about Haidt's work I should point out that the generalizations of Liberal and Conservative seem to appear to make it look like Conservatism is a mindset someone should avoid despite Haidt's discussion of the yin-yang symbol. Also, to picture a conservative as someone who is almost the reverse of a liberal is somewhat unfair. I personally belief to say that conservatives do not celebrate diversity or question authority and speak for the weak and oppressed is unfair. For instance take Mother Theresa, an Albanian foundress of the Missionaries of Charity, a Catholic Order of nuns. She spoke for and ministered to the poor of Calcutta, India. When accepting her Nobel Peace Prize she said the prize was not going to her but to the poor, the people she served. It was her morality that drove her to do all that she did. She told Jesus in 1941 that she would do anything that he would ask. This promise came to the fore on September 10, 1946 when according to Mother Theresa herself experienced a "call within a call". This is what spurred the creation of the Missionaries of Charity Congregation (33 Days to a Morning Glory, 68).  If it is true that morality blinds how should we interpret Mother Theresa's life?

Mother Theresa served the poor for most of her life and chose to see Christ in each person she met. This includes the homosexual. Johnathan's view that the reason that the reason why attitudes toward gay marriage changed because people got to know gay people is somewhat flawed. Yes perhaps everyone got to know gay or homosexual persons, but that doesn't necessarily mean their position on gay marriage changed.  His example question that liberals asked "How does it hurt your marriage if other people marry? Don't they have the right?" ignores that many marriages result in children. So Gay marriage isn't just about the adults involved it also involves the definition of family. Not only that this question assumes that gay marriage has nothing to do with changing the idea and definition of marriage. The definition must express both the personal and interpersonal purposes for marriage. Now this may not be how everyone looks at marriage but in the Catholic Church to be valid a marriage must be "free", "total", "faithful", and "fruitful". Thus a marriage cannot be forced upon someone or arranged;A marriage must be exclusive and not involve either party seeking out other partners; finally, a marriage must at least be open to children produced through sexual intercourse, ideally. A homosexual union fails on the last point because it cannot naturally produce children and things such as in vitro fertilization are frowned upon by the Church. I once heard Jason Evert founder of the Chasity Project, tell as story about how Mother Theresa told some journalists to call "the gay men" in India "the Friends of Jesus". In terms of Catholic teaching this reflects that the most important identity and the defining identity of a person is his or her being made in the image and likeness of God. Now, this truth pertains to my major issue with one of the examples Haidt uses in his TEDTalk about the "Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives". 

One's being created in the image and likeness of God not only should be their defining feature as a person, but also what makes them beautiful. According to the Catholic Church we should have a sense of wonder and awe when we look upon God's creation, thus we should be awed by the inherent beauty in what God has created. This is why I find it a bit off putting that Haidt uses the response to the statue of David by Michelangelo as an example of one who is liberal or conservative. The reaction he exemplifies as the "liberal reaction" one being intrigued by it could easily as be a conservative who subscribes to Christianity in some form (it doesn't have to be Catholicism). For Mother Theresa said the following (refer to image): 

This shows that beauty and the development of beauty means being centered around others not ourselves. This is what Michelangelo did in creating the David statue he made himself beautiful by thinking of others though it may have been more unconscious than conscious. This Statue of David by Michelangelo surely was not meant to be a tool to differentiate between liberals and conservatives but to reflect the inherent beauty of the human body which we should all be amazed at. Michelangelo demonstrates in his creation of this statue the words of Saint John Paul the Great (Pope John Paul II [refer to image]): 

This tells us that this statue fulfilled the work, the vocation of Michelangelo to "enrich the cultural heritage of [a] nation and of all humanity". Haidt's usage incorrectly situates an reaction of awe as something only a liberal can experience and a reaction of disgust as one only a conservative can have this ignores the cultural value and the call that the statue give to each person as to why they find or why would find it beautiful. This overgeneralization in both the text and the TEDTalk makes Haidt's ideas less persuasive. I respect that Haidt identified that morality bind and blinds, however, I disagree that this is true in all cases and thus his moral matrix argument while intriguing falls flat. Morality can bind people to a certain standard and can blind people if they are become self-righteous about it. However, I must ask if we are to step out  of Haidt's "moral matrix" are we devaluing morality saying that it does not matter? Are we saying there is not standard for behavior that should be adhered to in society?