|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 03/22/2007 : 20:27:30
|
Over thirty years ago, Edward O. Wilson established sociobiology, or, "the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior." He argued that for all of our cultural differences, there is a consistent human nature, set by our genes, that evolved by natural selection.
Twelve years ago Robert Wright published a rather thorough introduction to the now established field of evolutionary psychology, and specifically, the evolution of moral sensibilities in humans. Others, such as Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, and Daniel Dennett have expanded on this body of knowledge with other books on the subject.
Moral Minds, published in 2006, is a comprehensive update. In includes both new and somewhat less recent studies, making it an excellent introduction for readers who haven't read Wilson or Wright, but who are interested in an intro to evolutionary psychology.
Hauser has a sort of playful style. His book includes several quirky illustrations, and jokes such as: "With apologies to Jim Watson and Francis Crick, I refer to these primitive detectors as DNA, for Darwinian Nodes of Action." Although other parts of the book are awkward, such as when he poses the question of which is most disgusting, licking ice cream off a toilet seat or a brother and sister having sex. Ah, well, scientists are weird.
The main thesis of the book is introduced by means of metaphor. Hauser introduces three illustrated characters. First, the Kantian Creature, who derives her morality purely from her rational mind. Second, the Humean Creature, who derives his morality purely from his emotions. And finally, the creature that Hauser supports, the Rawlsian Creature, "equipped with the machinery to deliver moral verdicts based on unconscious and inaccessible principles. This is a creature with moral instincts." He refers back to all three creatures throughout the book, and excellent device for easing comprehension of many complex topics.
Most interesting to me was the discussion of a study of American college students who indicated a strong moral preference for moderate socialism: "But the winning principle was not quite as Rawls predicted. No group selected the difference principle, where distribution is anchored by the worst off. Instead, groups settled on a principle that maximized the overall resources of the group while preventing the worst off from dropping below some preestablished level of income. This principle provides a safety net for those who are disadvantaged, for whatever reason, while allowing for extra benefits to flow toward those who contribute more to society."
This book is an excellent resource for atheists who enjoy intellectual debates with folks who bring up the moral argument for the existence of God, or who think that people need religion or even laws to be "good".
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 02:20:03 [Permalink]
|
Sounds like a fine book, from your very clear and readable review, Marf. I'm putting Moral Minds on my future reading list. Thank you for going to the trouble of sharing this!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Moral Minds by Marc D. Hauser
