sapiens

abaya:

I think that Haidt's research is interesting on the surface, but from the article, I think that his evolutionary account seems a bit vague. So, morality was good for early humans? So now we have five moral systems that are innate psychololgical mechanisms? Why five? Why are they distinct? How does he distinguish between them? Any testable predictions?

In principle, I don't disagree with the possibility of innate psychological mechanisms that predispose children to absorb certain virtues. However, the five mechanisms, their input, decision rules, and output are unclear. This may be due to the science journalist, not Haidt. Perhaps Haidt is more clear in his empirical articles.

One aside: From an evolutionary perspective, selfishness is what produces altruism. The article author talks both about evolution being selfish and curbing selfishness. He's conflating levels of analysis.

Another aside: The author mentions natural selection and "survival of the fittest" together. Few biologists use "Survival of the fittest" as a descriptor of evolution by natural selection anymore. Colloquially, it's often misused to suggest survival of the "physically strongest". As it is misused, it also mischaracterizes evolution. Reproduction is the engine of E by NS, not survival. Finally, it's been used in arguments for an against eugenics.