If Jonathan Haidt's views on the bases of morality are accurately explained in this article, then it looks to me as if there's something wrong with them. He's identifying sources of morality beneath the level of conscious and rational justification, moral impulses that have got into the human make-up through the role they played in human evolution. While this might explain how something got to be there, however, it could never by itself provide a basis for our accepting that it is a norm we should continue to live by. For one thing, the evolutionary advantages it once resulted in may no longer hold under changed conditions. But, more crucially, what if it is the case - as it appears to be - that there are 'bad' features of human nature, which result, at least in certain conditions, in cruelty, needless violence and what have you? The fact that they're there doesn't automatically show that they ought to be followed, much less be encouraged. We can't do without reflective moral judgement.
(See my follow-up post on this.)