• In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

The Moral Instinct

#43: Jan. - Mar. 2008 (Non-Fiction)
JulianTheApostate
Masters
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:28 am
18
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 41 times

The Moral Instinct

Unread post

Steven Pinker has an essay, The Moral Instinct, in today's New York Times magazine.

It's pretty long, and I'll wait until I'm less tired before reading it. However, it sounds quite interesting, at least from the first few paragraphs. And it's relevant to some of the books about morality we've discussed lately.
bradams
No End in Sight
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:59 am
16
Been thanked: 3 times

Unread post

Ah, I see Pinker is trotting out Jonathan Haidt and moral dumbfounding again. Psychologists aren't usually very good philosophers and Pinker isn't any exception. His treatment of the philosophical issues involved in morality is quite shallow.
Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong.... Eventually many people admit, "I don't know, I can't explain it, I just know it's wrong...." People don't generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification
Unfortunately for Pinker, people tend to respond in the same manner to questions about scientific beliefs. They immediately declare that, for instance, the earth is round and grope to justify it. Most of them end up saying "I don't know, I can't explain it, I just know it." Some of the smarter ones might say that scientists have an explanation. A few might even be able to give a justification. Do a straw poll at work and see for yourself. I asked about thirty university educated friends (several with masters degrees in science and engineering) and one person managed to come up with "satellite pictures." None could even tell me that when a ship comes over the horizon you see the top of the mast first and then the mast, etc etc, let alone come up with a scientific or mathematical proof.

The fact that an area of the brain associated with emotions doesn't mean that emotion causes the judgment. It's most likely that people have been brought up at a young age to believe such things are wrong, and they feel a strong emotion because of this belief that the act is wrong! The belief causes the emotion, not the other way around.

If you want far better treatments of emotivist/expressivist theories of ethics I'd suggest you turn to Simon Blackburn or Alan Gibbard rather than Steven Pinker.
JulianTheApostate
Masters
Posts: 450
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:28 am
18
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 41 times

Unread post

Dissident Heart started another thread about this essay. Since that thread has more posts, let's abandon this one.
Post Reply

Return to “The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window Into Human Nature - by Stephen Pinker”