The Intuitive Dog and Its Rational Tail

Moral judgments are driven primarily by intuition, not reasoning. We feel first and then use reasoning to justify those feelings afterward.

Emotions play an essential role in decision-making.

They are not irrational or “dumb”—they are a form of information processing. Research (e.g., by Antonio Damasio) shows that people who lack emotional input make poor decisions, proving that emotions guide sound judgment.

Moral judgment is a cognitive process, but it comes in two forms:

• Intuition (fast, automatic, often emotional)

• Reasoning (slow, deliberate)

Moral emotions are one kind of moral intuition, but many intuitions are more subtle and don’t feel like emotions—yet they still guide our moral responses.

Social Intuitionist Model (vs. Rationalist Model)

• Traditional view (rationalist): We use reason to figure out what's right and wrong.

• Haidt’s model (intuitionist):

  • Moral judgment is automatic and emotional (System 1-style).

  • Moral reasoning is slow and strategic (used to justify, not discover truth).

  • Example: We see someone doing something weird or taboo and instantly feel it's wrong—then come up with reasons afterward.

2. Evidence for Intuition-Driven Morality

• Moral dumbfounding: People struggle to explain why something is wrong, even though they feel it's wrong.

  • E.g., brother and sister consensually having sex once, using birth control. People say “it’s wrong,” but can’t explain why.

• This shows that reasoning is not the cause of judgment, just a tool to defend it.

3. Reasoning is Mostly for Social Persuasion

• People use moral reasoning to defend their views, influence others, and signal virtue, not to find truth.

• Reasoning evolved as a social adaptation—we argue to win, not to understand.

4. The Role of Emotion

• Emotions like disgust, empathy, and anger trigger instant moral judgments.

• Rational thought often comes too late to override these judgments unless we deliberately slow down and reflect.

Implications:

• People don’t change their minds through logic—they need emotionally compelling narratives, trusted relationships, or gradual shifts.

• To be persuasive, connect with others emotionally before trying to argue rationally, appeal to their intuition first

• If you want to understand someone’s morality, ask about their intuitions and emotions—not just their reasoning.

People use both reasoning and moral intuitions, but their relationship isn’t equal. While Plato believed reason should dominate, and Jefferson saw reason and emotion as equal partners, Hume argued that reason is the servant of the passions—and this chapter supports Hume’s view.

The author applies this model in the book itself—addressing readers’ intuitions (elephants) before their reasoning (riders). Through storytelling, metaphors, and personal narrative, he aims to shift readers from rationalism to intuitionism. If your intuition resists this idea, no amount of logic will change your mind. But if you’re open to it, the next chapters will build on that intuitive shift with reasoning.