Chris
12-14-2013, 07:38 PM
Here are perhaps the latest findings on the evolution of morality--OK, one scientist, but what he's writing about is fairly common, see, for instance the work of Matt Ridley's The Origins of Virtue. The point being this is interesting stuff whether you agree entirely with it or not.
For example, I don't see morality as a set of rules, do this, don't do that--those are expressions of morality that vary across cultures. No, I see morality as the natural guidelines or rules of thumb by which we justify or condemn chosen actions. Something akin to the genotype-phenotype distinction.
Anyway, to the article, see what you think...
6 Surprising Scientific Findings About Good and Evil (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/12/inquiring-minds-joshua-greene-moral-tribes)
Maybe you already know the famous hypothetical dilemma: A train is barreling down a track, about to hit five people, who are certain to die if nothing happens. You are standing at a fork in the track and can throw a switch to divert the train to another track—but if you do so, one person, tied to that other track, will die. So what would you do? And moreover, what do you think your fellow citizens would do?
The first question is a purely ethical one; the second, however, can be investigated scientifically. And in the past decade, a group of researchers have been pursuing precisely that sort of investigation. They've put our sense of right and wrong in lab, and even in the fMRI machine. And their findings have begun to dramatically illuminate how we make moral and political decisions and, perhaps, will even reshape our understanding of what morality is in the first place.
"The core of morality is a suite of psychological capacities that enable us to get along in groups," explains Harvard's Joshua Greene, a leader in this research and author of the new book Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them, on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast (listen above). The word "group" here is essential: According to Greene, while we have innate dispositions to care for one another, they're ultimately limited and work best among smallish clans of people who trust and know each other.
The morality that the globalizing world of today requires, Greene argues, is thus quite different from the morality that comes naturally to us. To see how he reaches this conclusion, let's go through some surprising facts from Greene's research and from the science of morality generally:
1. Evolution gave us morality—as a default setting....
2. Gossip is our moral scorecard....
3. We're built to solve the problem of "me versus us." We don't know how to deal with "us versus them."...
4. Morality varies regionally and culturally....
5. Your brain is not in favor of the greatest good for the greatest number....
6. Humanity may, objectively, be becoming more moral....
For example, I don't see morality as a set of rules, do this, don't do that--those are expressions of morality that vary across cultures. No, I see morality as the natural guidelines or rules of thumb by which we justify or condemn chosen actions. Something akin to the genotype-phenotype distinction.
Anyway, to the article, see what you think...
6 Surprising Scientific Findings About Good and Evil (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/12/inquiring-minds-joshua-greene-moral-tribes)
Maybe you already know the famous hypothetical dilemma: A train is barreling down a track, about to hit five people, who are certain to die if nothing happens. You are standing at a fork in the track and can throw a switch to divert the train to another track—but if you do so, one person, tied to that other track, will die. So what would you do? And moreover, what do you think your fellow citizens would do?
The first question is a purely ethical one; the second, however, can be investigated scientifically. And in the past decade, a group of researchers have been pursuing precisely that sort of investigation. They've put our sense of right and wrong in lab, and even in the fMRI machine. And their findings have begun to dramatically illuminate how we make moral and political decisions and, perhaps, will even reshape our understanding of what morality is in the first place.
"The core of morality is a suite of psychological capacities that enable us to get along in groups," explains Harvard's Joshua Greene, a leader in this research and author of the new book Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them, on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast (listen above). The word "group" here is essential: According to Greene, while we have innate dispositions to care for one another, they're ultimately limited and work best among smallish clans of people who trust and know each other.
The morality that the globalizing world of today requires, Greene argues, is thus quite different from the morality that comes naturally to us. To see how he reaches this conclusion, let's go through some surprising facts from Greene's research and from the science of morality generally:
1. Evolution gave us morality—as a default setting....
2. Gossip is our moral scorecard....
3. We're built to solve the problem of "me versus us." We don't know how to deal with "us versus them."...
4. Morality varies regionally and culturally....
5. Your brain is not in favor of the greatest good for the greatest number....
6. Humanity may, objectively, be becoming more moral....