January 12, 2008
pinker on the science of the moral sense
The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinions we have on how people ought to behave. Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (“killing is wrong”), rather than merely disagreeable (“I hate brussels sprouts”), unfashionable (“bell-bottoms are out”) or imprudent (“don’t scratch mosquito bites”).The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted. One can easily say, “I don’t like brussels sprouts, but I don’t care if you eat them,” but no one would say, “I don’t like killing, but I don’t care if you murder someone.”
more from the NY Times Magazine here.
Posted by Morgan Meis at 11:53 AM | Permalink
Comments
It should be made clear that this is not the "science" of moral sense at all. On what *empirical* basis does Pinker (or anyone else) concoct five labels, each loaded with cultural baggage and meaning, with which to classify morality?
We should not let the appearance of systematicity deceive us, here. This is not "science", it is cultural interpretation, made from within a particular standpoint and validated by the usual ad-hoc tacking on of an "evolutionary" explanation for the supposed universality of the categories.
A great read, but I wish we didn't need to invoke the Heroic Age of Science to validate interesting cultural interpretation.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jan 12, 2008 6:09:36 PM
I liked it :) The paired examples of the moral axes are the most interesting - the minimal changes you can make to make something immoral (ie. you can't pay for something, but you can accept it for free).
Posted by: - | Jan 12, 2008 7:26:11 PM
Much of the work Pinker talked about was actually carried out by Jonathan Haidt. Given how strongly Haidt has been promoting himself recently, I cannot doubt he's rather miffed to see this article written by Steven Pinker.
Posted by: D | Jan 13, 2008 2:20:52 AM
I'm clearly an amoral psychopath, at least according to his paired moral axes. I have no problem with people acting like animals on stage, and I find it strange anyone does. Similarly, there are many people in authority I would love to slap. I do not feel a pang of moral doubt when I think about slapping George Bush or Nicolas Sarkozy. Rather, I fear the police who would beat me down and throw my in jail without a trail. Maybe many of these examples seem repugnant to Pinker (Naked people pissing on each other? Give me a break Mr. Moralist), but they hardly unveil some universal moral truth. Of course, I'm a social liberal, and according to Pinker I "put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity." Which is actually all quite true, although I do find myself somewhat loyal to those who have given me reason to hold them in respect.
There seems to be much truth to all this, but if the examples in the article are the best Pinker can come up with to support these "five moral spheres" (a rather Platonic phrasing) then clearly much research has yet to be done. The latter part of the article is particularly strong, until Pinker tries to excuse American consumptive excess as trivial, and then proceeds to write off the Chinese and Indians as blind. And here I thought this new science of morality was apolitical.
Posted by: Cyrus Hall | Jan 13, 2008 7:40:41 AM
Fascinating article and replies. For what it's worth, there is a free, non-profit educational web site that has several full interviews with Dr. Norman Borlaug -- who is featured in the original article -- about his work in agriculture. Go to http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org and click on the "Media Resouces" for video podcasts of his interviews. Or go to the "Farming in the 50s-60s" section and click on the "Crops" subsection to see longer articles about the history and debate about the Green Revolution. Again, it's totally free and non-profit.
Posted by: Bill Ganzel | Jan 14, 2008 11:48:25 AM
Post a comment