Saturday, January 12, 2008 | Science : Psychiatry and Psychology | print version

The Moral Instinct

by Steven Pinker

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?ref=science

Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it's an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in "I Hate Gates" Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?

Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the "Green Revolution" that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.

It's not hard to see why the moral reputations of this trio should be so out of line with the good they have done. Mother Teresa was the very embodiment of saintliness: white-clad, sad-eyed, ascetic and often photographed with the wretched of the earth. Gates is a nerd's nerd and the world's richest man, as likely to enter heaven as the proverbial camel squeezing through the needle's eye. And Borlaug, now 93, is an agronomist who has spent his life in labs and nonprofits, seldom walking onto the media stage, and hence into our consciousness, at all.

I doubt these examples will persuade anyone to favor Bill Gates over Mother Teresa for sainthood. But they show that our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning of the actions that make people suffer or flourish. It seems we may all be vulnerable to moral illusions the ethical equivalent of the bending lines that trick the eye on cereal boxes and in psychology textbooks. Illusions are a favorite tool of perception scientists for exposing the workings of the five senses, and of philosophers for shaking people out of the naïve belief that our minds give us a transparent window onto the world (since if our eyes can be fooled by an illusion, why should we trust them at other times?). Today, a new field is using illusions to unmask a sixth sense, the moral sense. Moral intuitions are being drawn out of people in the lab, on Web sites and in brain scanners, and are being explained with tools from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them," wrote Immanuel Kant, "the starry heavens above and the moral law within." These days, the moral law within is being viewed with increasing awe, if not always admiration. The human moral sense turns out to be an organ of considerable complexity, with quirks that reflect its evolutionary history and its neurobiological foundations.

These quirks are bound to have implications for the human predicament. Morality is not just any old topic in psychology but close to our conception of the meaning of life. Moral goodness is what gives each of us the sense that we are worthy human beings. We seek it in our friends and mates, nurture it in our children, advance it in our politics and justify it with our religions. A disrespect for morality is blamed for everyday sins and history's worst atrocities. To carry this weight, the concept of morality would have to be bigger than any of us and outside all of us.

So dissecting moral intuitions is no small matter. If morality is a mere trick of the brain, some may fear, our very grounds for being moral could be eroded. Yet as we shall see, the science of the moral sense can instead be seen as a way to strengthen those grounds, by clarifying what morality is and how it should steer our actions.

To continue go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?ref=science

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, January 12, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 376 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #110721 by SonOfPearl on January 12, 2008 at 7:01 am

I impatiently await Bill Gates' beatification.

Other Comments by SonOfPearl

2. Comment #110722 by Diacanu on January 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug?

(Without reading further)

Borlaug!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

3. Comment #110724 by Incredulous on January 12, 2008 at 7:33 am

Moral intuitions are being drawn out of people in the lab, on Web sites and in brain scanners, and are being explained with tools from game theory, neuroscience and evolutionary biology.

Anything, as long as it corrects the strange moral insight that suffering is good for the soul.

Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.

Just what people need, eh?

Am I the only person who thinks that when people need help the last thing they need is sanctimony, psuedo psychology and guilt loaded inhumanity advising it on how to bear poverty and disappointment.

At least Borlaug and Gates are for real - as are many true philanthropists who offer practical solutions and not 'wallow in the problem' philosophy.

I have to admit a little Christopher Hitchens' influence here, but sometimes he makes a lot of sense.

Other Comments by Incredulous

4. Comment #110725 by BigJohn on January 12, 2008 at 7:34 am

We need a dozen more Norman Borlaugs. Bill Gates could finance them.

BTW, thanks to Penn for introducing many of us to Norman Borlaug through his radio show.

Other Comments by BigJohn

5. Comment #110726 by Radesq on January 12, 2008 at 7:38 am

Bill Gates could certainly afford to buy some church indulgences if not sainthood -- so he's got that going for him -- which is nice.

Other Comments by Radesq

6. Comment #110728 by jakelovatto on January 12, 2008 at 7:53 am

The last rabbit hole?
Where does morality come from if not from Superman?
This article is short enough, 8 pages, to show where morality comes from to the people who make this claim even those with short attention spans.
I agree with Pinker that the more we know about our morality the more 'moral' we can become.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

7. Comment #110729 by julianstirling on January 12, 2008 at 7:55 am

Diacanu:

Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug?

(Without reading further)

Borlaug!!

I also shouted Borlaug at my screen at this point.

Other Comments by julianstirling

8. Comment #110730 by Steve Zara on January 12, 2008 at 8:09 am

I impatiently await Bill Gates' beatification.

If Bill Gates invented a religion, it would have horrendous licence fees, be based on way-out-of-date ideas, it would look vaguely attractive but would be full of inconsistencies and would fail people all the time. It would contain re-packaged ideas from competitors, would attempt to put competing religions out of business, and would get clogged up with dogmatic add-ons, and would be vunerable to corruption.

Hmm...

Borlaug!!

Gesundheit!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

9. Comment #110731 by sent2null on January 12, 2008 at 8:12 am

Excellent article on the nuances behind moral choices and views.

Putting God in charge of morality is one way to solve the problem, of course, but Plato made short work of it 2,400 years ago.

I had to chuckle at that sentence, to bad more theists aren't aware of its truth.

Other Comments by sent2null

10. Comment #110732 by BNCbright on January 12, 2008 at 8:13 am

"unmask a sixth sense, the moral sense"

This sounds dangerously close to the slippery slope of moral objectivity. Whilst our other senses do not 'sense' tastes, or sounds, for example (these things being the construct of our consciousness), they are usually prompted, in predictable and repeatable ways by identifiable physical sources (chemicals, sound waves etc). By claiming a 'moral sixth sense' are we not committed to the existence of some cause that exists independently of our ability to sense it, i.e. objective moral truths?

Furthermore, perhaps this is a place for a discussion of what we mean by morality. Having studied ethics at university I have been forced to adopt a position of moral relativism, as the claim of objective moral truths has to, I think, rest on some very shaky metaphysical assumptions.

If this is the case, it's all very well us having our own opinion of what is 'morally right and wrong,' and these terms might have some weight in communicating if other people have similar intuitions/feelings/opinions/reactions, but in essence talk of morality is empty, and actually lazy. If I say 'I think murder is morally wrong,' and you disagree there is a stalemate - we are claiming to make contradictory statements but, unless there is objective morality, we are not. We are merely expressing a difference of opinions, but when people express their beliefs on 'morality' they often feel no need to further defend them. (Remind anyone of the typical 'I'm prepared to debate X,Y,Z, it's my faith?) We could make statements of fact about the negative effects on the happiness of people if murder occurs, but this has nothing to do with morality unless, on shaky grounds again, we assign moral value to people's happiness.

Hitchens (et al), get very offended when religious people ask them how they can be moral without religious belief - I'm not sure they should be so worried. I think it is, certainly, possible to act in ways which people on the whole, in civilized societies call 'moral,' but I think Hitchens' reaction suggests a belief in objective morality which I don't think can exist, credibly, without a belief in God, which is in turn incredible.

Can anyone persuade me differently? I'm fairly sure of this opinion, and still like to think that I behave in a way which most people would call 'morally right' - but when I voice such an opinion , of moral relativism, people REALLY don't like it on the whole. (Even more than when I tell religious types that they're suffering from a delusion! =)

Cheers,

BNC

Other Comments by BNCbright

11. Comment #110733 by sent2null on January 12, 2008 at 8:20 am

This sounds dangerously close to the slippery slope of moral objectivity.

I thought the same at the point but he righted the view later in the passage and article. He is definitely a moral relativist from what I read in that article, he just seems concerned that a full embrace of the meaning of moral relativism may lead to social issues. Issues , not in the sense that a theist believes it would lead to amoral behaviors (as they constantly assert) but in a different sense of "our morals versus their morals" knowing the human penchant for out group versus in group fights, it is not beyond reason that some idiots will come along to do just that even in a world where objective morality has been made obsolete.

Regards,

Other Comments by sent2null

12. Comment #110734 by Peacebeuponme on January 12, 2008 at 8:24 am

By claiming a 'moral sixth sense' are we not committed to the existence of some cause that exists independently of our ability to sense it, i.e. objective moral truths?

Not really, there's no objective smelliness or objectivity related to our other senses. I don't really like the 'moral sixth sense' argument though.

belief in objective morality which I don't think can exist, credibly, without a belief in God, which is in turn incredible.

I don't think it can exist, credibly, God or no. You can only consider things right or wrong if you compare them to a given standard. So if the standard is the golden rule, say, then killing is wrong, but killing cannot be absolutely wrong on its own.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

13. Comment #110735 by Frankus1122 on January 12, 2008 at 8:25 am

I really like Pinker's writing. He doesn't beat you over the head with his atheism (not "shrill" etc.) but puts forth his beliefs backed up with scientific research.
He is a 'Rationalist'. This is my choice for the alternative to 'Atheist' (the debate Sam Harris started).
With Pinker we get a man who does his work in science and the logical, rational, reasonable conclusions are put forth. The question of God is only casually disregarded.
His approach seems to be: 'Here are some ideas about how we work as humans and of course God has nothing to do with it', not 'God does not exist and these are reasons why'.
I know there is a battle going on. But it is a battle over how we think, not what we believe (or don't believe). Open inquiry can lead to such new discoveries as Pinker has outlined. Could such discoveries have occurred if we were closed to the idea that morality comes from anywhere other than God? No.
Is it possible that morality comes from God?
Sure. I'm open to that. Prove it.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

14. Comment #110736 by BNCbright on January 12, 2008 at 8:26 am

Agreed, sent2null, in the sense that he sort of corrects himself. Nonetheless, if really what we are talking about is one group's opinions vs another's and a worry that a minority of people might do something that we don't like, disgusts us, offends us, harms us and so on, what is to be gained by describing this situation as a dispute about 'morals', given that this is such a troublesome term? I stand by the view that this is just lazy argument - 'I don't like what they're doing, so I'll call it immoral'. In fact, I think that many people who describe homosexuality, for example, as 'immoral' are actually using this term as a cover for their simple dislike of it.

Other Comments by BNCbright

15. Comment #110738 by MPhil on January 12, 2008 at 8:31 am

BNCbright
Being a student of philosophy myself, I don't think that moral relativism follows naturally from the insight that there are no objective values (which I don't think exist either).
One can still adopt an ethical theory like contractualism or utilitariansim, neither of which requires objective values, but from within which you can still uniquely decide (at least some) moral questions. Thus, the conclusion of strong moral relativism ("there is no way of making a justified moral judgement") doesn't necessarily follow from the premise "no objective metaphysical moral values"

Just wanted to note that, (having done so in another thread already)... sorry I don't have time for more now, gotta go.

But Steve Zara, I promise to get back to you on animal cognition - you've made some very interesting points...

Talk to you later,
-Mike

Other Comments by MPhil

16. Comment #110739 by Steve Zara on January 12, 2008 at 8:32 am

Agreed, sent2null, in the sense that he sort of corrects himself. Nonetheless, if really what we are talking about is one group's opinions vs another's and a worry that a minority of people might do something that we don't like, disgusts us, offends us, harms us and so on, what is to be gained by describing this situation as a dispute about 'morals', given that this is such a troublesome term? I stand by the view that this is just lazy argument - 'I don't like what they're doing, so I'll call it immoral'.

I agree. This is problematic, and he should have tried to use a better term. An analogy is perhaps with the sense of taste - when we are young we say something is "disgusting" as against "I don't personally like this". We realise that "like or dislike" in terms of food is not objective. The trick is going to be educating people that a similar distinction is needed for the "moral intuition".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #110740 by Diacanu on January 12, 2008 at 8:37 am

...so...people who say, like to keep their dismembered neighbors in their freezer are akin to people who like anchovies..??

Other Comments by Diacanu

18. Comment #110742 by Incredulous on January 12, 2008 at 8:46 am

I worked at Microsoft(UK) for a year as what is called an intern, so I'm not going to get involved in Gates baiting, though I understand what you are saying, Steve. I see the whole Microsoft thing a bit differently.

Given that it is agreed that moral objectivism or moral absolutism, does that mean that there is no way that logical or empirical investigations are possible in this domain?

Does science really have a part to play then in developing moral codes as it is based on logic and empirical evidence?

Naturally, for objectivism to be true we must get our values from god or nature, I don't believe this, I'm wondering what people here think the driving force for resolving value conflicts and development of moral values should continue to be derived from.

Other Comments by Incredulous

19. Comment #110743 by Diacanu on January 12, 2008 at 8:50 am

Incredulous-

Naturally, for objectivism to be true we must get our values from god or nature,

Or if one means objectivism in the Ayn Rand sense, material accomplishment in the form of how much is in your bank account.

Other Comments by Diacanu

20. Comment #110744 by Steve Zara on January 12, 2008 at 8:58 am

Incredulous:

It was a cheap shot, but perhaps you can understand as almost all technologies I use for development and deployment of software have, at one time or another, been attacked by Microsoft using underhand means, and using those technologies has saved companies substantial amounts of money in license and upgrade costs.

...so...people who say, like to keep their dismembered neighbors in their freezer are akin to people who like anchovies..??

OK, so it was not a good analogy at all..

Given that it is agreed that moral objectivism or moral absolutism, does that mean that there is no way that logical or empirical investigations are possible in this domain?

I think they can.

Does science really have a part to play then in developing moral codes as it is based on logic and empirical evidence?

I believe so, as I am sure we can objectively measure if someone is happy, and in my view some of the best moral codes (such as those in Buddhism) are based on increasing happiness.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #110746 by jakelovatto on January 12, 2008 at 9:09 am

"It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." - John Stuart Mill

Morality is better based on solidarity and concern for others well-being, than increase in happiness.

Other Comments by jakelovatto

22. Comment #110749 by Steve Zara on January 12, 2008 at 9:19 am

Morality is better based on solidarity and concern for others well-being, than increase in happiness.

A robust feeling of happiness requires concern for others. A simple way of looking at the idea of Karma is that you tend to make yourself happier in this life by goodwill and kindness to others.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #110751 by rod-the-farmer on January 12, 2008 at 9:33 am

Bill Gates a saint ? Hmm. I have certainly sworn in his name.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

24. Comment #110753 by Vinelectric on January 12, 2008 at 9:40 am

Consider this moral dilemma: A runaway trolley is about to kill a schoolteacher. You can divert the trolley onto a sidetrack, but the trolley would trip a switch sending a signal to a class of 6-year-olds, giving them permission to name a teddy bear Muhammad. Is it permissible to pull the lever?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself, ..Good one....!!! Now back to the article....

Other Comments by Vinelectric

25. Comment #110756 by suffolkthinker on January 12, 2008 at 9:52 am

would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug

Given I've only met one, he endowewed by University rather generously, has public said he has not need for a God Hyothesis and has given more to help real suffering than anyone alive there can only really be one choice....

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

26. Comment #110762 by epeeist on January 12, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #110730 by Steve Zara

If Bill Gates invented a religion, it would have horrendous licence fees, be based on way-out-of-date ideas, it would look vaguely attractive but would be full of inconsistencies and would fail people all the time.

And wouldn't reach beta quality until version 3.0

Other Comments by epeeist

27. Comment #110763 by Cartomancer on January 12, 2008 at 10:37 am

The thing about a purely subjective "morality" based ultimately on personal preferences is that personal preferences are, for the most part, neither arbitrary nor consciously chosen.

Human beings, indeed all animals, evolved naturally to prefer particular things to their alternatives. Perhaps the simplest moral rule "killing is wrong" is the obvious example. Apart from a very few individuals, whom we label psychopaths or some such, human beings very much prefer to survive rather than to be killed. It's been bred into us through millions of generations of selection pressure for pro-survival attitudes. As such we prefer to live in a world where unnecessary killing does not go on and express that preference as a moral rule for not killing unnecessarily. Similarly we are all bred with sexual desires, preferences for certain types of foods, the need for shelter and stability in our lives (originally a child-rearing mechanism to some extent) and so on. Of course these desires come into conflict - both within an individual and between individuals - so they must be regulated in some way. Animals lacking rational thought and consciousness simply follow their instincts and let nature take its course - eventually adopting successful and increasingly complex strategies over the generations as the genes and conditions favouring those strategies proliferate. Humans, however, have developed a very sophisticated set of machinery for weighing up and assesing their regulatory strategies, which we use alongside and informed by our more instinctual "moral" urges. This does not give us freedom to adopt any regulatory strategy we like with a guarantee of equal success however - some strategies will work much better than others to achieve the desired result.

My preferred definition of "morals" is "rules we use to create the sort of societies we want to live in" and scientific analysis - the application of reason to evidence - is the only way we can make progress in working out which combinations of rules will (with appropriate enforcement mechanisms) lead to which kinds of societies. Recently we have also made some progress, using psychiatry and psychology, toward working out the kinds of societies we are predisposed to prefer in general terms.

Which is not to say, of course, that because we are predisposed to certain preferences they should be honoured and accommodated rather than fought against and reigned in. Whether preferences are "natural" or not is immaterial in weighing up their place in the grand scheme of things. The natural testosterone-fulled competitive urges of young males for instance, can be hugely destructive to social order and need to be kept under control, probably by directing them into beneficial and constructive activities rather than counter-productive ones. Nevertheless it is vital that we know what these urges are, why they exist, and how they can be dealt with effectively, and the science helps us out here. Another example is acceptance of homosexuality - science (primarily sociology and biology) has shown that it is a naturally occurring and broadly harmless phenomenon (certainly no more harmful than heterosexuality) which does not impact adversely on society at all, and thus there really is no good reason to restrict, discourage or oppose it (which have shown to be harmful, socially damaging and entirely unproductive "moral" strategies).

The big fear of theists and those who crave an objective metaphysical morality is that without one anything goes and, upon realising this, society will tear itself apart in a bloodbath of conflicting destructive impulses. This presumes, flying in the face of the evidence, that human biological impulses are essentially random, tend toward destructiveness and uncooperativeness and differ wildly from individual to individual. In reality, however, we basically all want pretty much the same things and are willing to cooperate to a very significant extent because it is the only way to secure those things.

Which is not to say, of course, that there are no moral dilemmas or tricky situations - the ad-hoc nature of human evolution and the dictates of circumstance account for this quite effectively. Nevertheless there is a tremendous degree of coherence on the basics.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

28. Comment #110764 by Henri Bergson on January 12, 2008 at 10:41 am

Foolish words by Mr Pinker.

Morality is a delusion just as religion is: neither can be proved.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

29. Comment #110769 by atp on January 12, 2008 at 11:01 am

An absolute objective moral is to me like religion, I have never seen any evidence for such a thing.

Mostly, and this is not meant as a strawman, I see people subscribe to the idea because they are not comfortable with a world where it is up to each and every single individual to make up his or her mind about whether it is okay to kill or not.

So, as far as I am concerned, all ethics and morals are subjective and it is actually up to each individual to make up his or her own mind about what is right or wrong. But of course not in a vacuum, but influenced by parents and society.

But subjective moral is not the same as moral relativism.

If my ethics says it is wrong to kill people. It is wrong to kill all people. If I make exceptions in my ethics for people of some cultures, saying it is OK for people of that culture to kill, then this would be moral relativism.

It would also mean I would have a double moral standard. One standard for one group of people, another standard for another group of people. This double moral, or lack of moral, is moral relativism. But is not the same as subjective moral.

It is very possible to have a subjective moral without falling into the trap of moral relativsm.

Other Comments by atp

30. Comment #110771 by Peacebeuponme on January 12, 2008 at 11:09 am

Cartomancer

My preferred definition of "morals" is "rules we use to create the sort of societies we want to live in"

Precisely. You write well about how a positive attutide to cooperation has evolved as well. For some reason theists think this positive attitude can only come from God's absolute morality. Strange.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

31. Comment #110774 by Double Bass Atheist on January 12, 2008 at 11:50 am

…and the vast majority of people (especially here in the US) would say the world could use many more people just like her.
As the article alludes to, many scientists toil in obscurity, writing papers about their research that few outside of academia will ever read… while the results of their work save countless lives and/or improves our overall quality of life.
Christians use inventions, medicines, technology, and various other aspects of science everyday while being seemingly oblivious to this reality, and continue to "thank god" for it instead.
I know that's been said many times on these forums, but articles like this are a constant reminder to me.

Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist

32. Comment #110777 by dysolution on January 12, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Just to clarify: beatification does not mean "reception of a beating," although my inner Jesse Jackson would argue otherwise.

Other Comments by dysolution

33. Comment #110779 by jeepyjay on January 12, 2008 at 1:31 pm

Pinker asks: "Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug?"

Well from the point of view of reducing the human overpopulation of the planet the answer must be Mother Teresa!

Other Comments by jeepyjay

34. Comment #110780 by BAEOZ on January 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm

If Bill Gates invented a religion, it would have horrendous licence fees, be based on way-out-of-date ideas, it would look vaguely attractive but would be full of inconsistencies and would fail people all the time. It would contain re-packaged ideas from competitors, would attempt to put competing religions out of business, and would get clogged up with dogmatic add-ons, and would be vunerable to corruption.

Bill Gates invented Scientology?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

35. Comment #110781 by robotaholic on January 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm

I like Steven Pinker, but as with anyone viewer discretion is advised.

Other Comments by robotaholic

36. Comment #110788 by LorienRyan on January 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm

A man is driven to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family, he is seen by an upstanding man of the community who notifies the authorities and he is arrested by the police for stealing and thrown in jail, the man's family starves. He is released from jail to find his family dead and spirals into deep depression, a religious minister consoles him and the man is converted to religion. The church provides him with food and shelter which motivates him to preach the religion. One day he is deriled by an atheist for being wrong and insane upon which a heated confrontation begins. Eventually the man seeing the logic of the atheist and the irrationality of his ways leaves the church gets his life on track and becomes a scientist. He is employed by a chemical company to do research in biochemical products. Unknown to the man the company sells biochemical products to an arms dealer which supplies an iranian company with chemical weapons...

Morals?

Other Comments by LorienRyan

37. Comment #110789 by ianmkz on January 12, 2008 at 2:36 pm

A man is driven to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family...

What the Dawkins are you talking about?

Other Comments by ianmkz

38. Comment #110790 by LorienRyan on January 12, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Just having some fun with moral dilemmas

Other Comments by LorienRyan

39. Comment #110792 by ianmkz on January 12, 2008 at 2:40 pm

LorienRyan,
don't mind me, I've just been itching to use "what the dawkins...?" for a couple of days now.

Other Comments by ianmkz

40. Comment #110793 by LorienRyan on January 12, 2008 at 2:44 pm

That's ok, nice phrase.

It seems moral objectivity can only be reached when everyone's moral subjectivity is the same.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

41. Comment #110794 by phil rimmer on January 12, 2008 at 2:50 pm

it would have horrendous licence fees, be based on way-out-of-date ideas, it would look vaguely attractive but would be full of inconsistencies and would fail people all the time. It would contain re-packaged ideas from competitors, would attempt to put competing religions out of business, and would get clogged up with dogmatic add-ons, and would be vunerable to corruption.

I have never seen a more perfect definition of what a religion is.

F*ck!

God IS a speccy nerd.

Fortunately for us Bill Gates is the only real character here. He only screwed up some software not a whole planet full of people, and seems to be about to give us some of our money back...which is nice.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

42. Comment #110796 by mjwemdee on January 12, 2008 at 3:03 pm

'...many behaviors have been amoralized, switched from moral failings to lifestyle choices. They include divorce, illegitimacy, being a working mother, marijuana use and homosexuality.'

Really? Is divorce a 'behavior' now? And illegitimacy? And I really must protest (as one who knows) - homosexuality is NOT a 'lifestyle choice'. What DO you teach at Harvard, Mr Pinker?

Other Comments by mjwemdee

43. Comment #110798 by LorienRyan on January 12, 2008 at 3:09 pm

mjwemdee,

isn't Steven Pinker writing from the perspective of the mainstream view? He seems just to be pointing out the direction of the shifting moral zeitgiest.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

44. Comment #110799 by mjwemdee on January 12, 2008 at 3:24 pm

LorienRyan,

I know he is, of course ;-)

But he's been a bit careless explaining the point. If you take him literally, he appears to be grouping all five examples as behaviors. The only one I would concede is a behavior is marijuana use.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

45. Comment #110800 by LorienRyan on January 12, 2008 at 3:31 pm

mjwemdee,

I guess it also depends on how one defines 'behavior'. How much of 'choice', 'environmental' factors and genetics does one attribute to behavior?

Other Comments by LorienRyan

46. Comment #110802 by mjwemdee on January 12, 2008 at 3:50 pm

LorienRyan,

Agreed. But I can't help thinking:

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh,' said Alice. She was much to puzzled to make any other remark.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

47. Comment #110803 by BAEOZ on January 12, 2008 at 3:54 pm

Morality is a delusion just as religion is: neither can be proved.

Henri, my favorite cynic, is back! How's it going Henri?
Morality can't be proved? It can be shown to exist perhaps?
No society can function if we think nothing of killing a person. Every individual would have to fend for himself. No one could safely associate with anybody else. The same goes for a society where lying is acceptable practice. Communication would be pointless because you wouldn't be able to trust anybody. You couldn't enter an agreement or trade. This doesn't mean that people don't kill or lie in successful societies, just that for any society to be successful these tenets have to exist and be observed in the majority of cases. The exceptions to these rules would be the cultural aspect. It may be OK to lie or steal when a life depends on it, or to kill in self-defense. So for a society to exist, it is wrong to murder and lie in most cases. This is only a description of why it's seen to be wrong.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

48. Comment #110804 by phil rimmer on January 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm

I thought the article was excellent. I don't believe it gives any hostages to fortune in the language it uses. [EDIT except the poor phrasing of the lifestyle choices!] It should safely launch a much wider audience on the waters of moral relativism. It clearly delineates the better moral course as being one of investigation and introspection rather than adherence to the way of ancient dogma.

Though it seems the roots of our morality are not in fact grounded in crisp unambiguous Hebrew as some attest, they do seem to run a lot, lot deeper. When were the first truly socialised animals? Anyway, for me, objective morality has always stumbled at the first few hurdles, interpretation and the value judgments required in choosing the lesser of two evils.

Pinker's path to reconciliation between groups of equal but differing moral conviction is, I suspect, the single most important journey we as a species will have to make. We have come a long way in subverting some pretty basic brain wirng (xenophobic amygdalas etc.), enabling the transition from bleakly starving tribes to prosperous, leisured and creative nations. A further step is clearly necessary given that our ability to inflict harm has scaled up quite as dramatically.

Remembering that every war was a just war, aligning our moral sense becomes hugely important and Pinker's (and Chekov's) path, i.e. to objectively understand ourselves and each other, is the only rational course to take. Religion stands squarely in the way.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

49. Comment #110805 by LorienRyan on January 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm

mjwemdee,

I get pedantic sometimes, but in a good way.

Thanks for your replies.

Other Comments by LorienRyan

50. Comment #110807 by LorienRyan on January 12, 2008 at 3:59 pm

phil rimmer, "Remembering that every war was a just war, aligning our moral sense becomes hugely important and Pinker's (and Chekov's) path, i.e. to objectively understand ourselves and each other, is the only rational course to take. Religion stands squarely in the way."

here, here!

Other Comments by LorienRyan

Reload Comments | Back to Top