Reply to comment

By showing how moral judgments are ex-post-facto explanations of moral intuitions, Haidt does a pretty good job of explaining "the futility of most moral arguments."  

 Yes I would say that this is fairly true statement. I do believe that people make many, maybe even most, of their moral judgements, be they fundamentally moral or not, that are simply rooted in their most basic instincts. Haidt recognizes this human power as intuitions into which we are individually and collectively cued to the same moral judgement. Moral reasoning here is the interesting part. How people decide to argue their instinctive(ly different) moral judgments  is where deviation occurs and perhaps one is really able to get down to what a truly moral response to something would have been had people been unaffected by outside influences etc. It would perhaps be interested to look at why people argue Euthanasia certain ways when if they are already so dead set on the subject they wouldn't need to even go about morally reasoning out their position.