Final answer:
Jonathan Haidt's work focuses on motivated reasoning, where people justify beliefs and actions by favoring information that aligns with their existing beliefs and downplaying evidence to the contrary. This can lead to justification of what might be considered irrational behavior, but may have underlying rational reasons.
Step-by-step explanation:
Jonathan Haidt characterizes our attempts to justify our beliefs and behaviors through the concept of motivated reasoning. This is the human tendency to embrace ideas that we want to believe and to reject evidence that challenges those beliefs. Haidt suggests that our reasoning is often a post-hoc construction, generated after we have made a decision, to justify our actions and beliefs. Behavioral economists, a field that intersects with Haidt's work, have brought attention to systematic behaviors previously dismissed as irrational, suggesting there may be deep reasons underpinning what appears to be irrational behavior. Understanding that there can be a disconnect between moral reasoning and moral behavior is also critical. People often endorse high-level moral principles, yet their actions might be driven by more immediate, self-oriented motives. Recognizing this helps explain why individuals can 'talk the talk' without necessarily 'walking the walk' when it comes to moral and ethical conduct.