What do you think?
Rate this book
moral-minds-how-nature-designed-our-universal-sense-of-right-and-wrong
Marc Hauser's eminently readable and comprehensive book Moral Minds is revolutionary. He argues that humans have evolved a universal moral instinct, unconsciously propelling us to deliver judgments of right and wrong independent of gender, education, and religion. Experience tunes up our moral actions, guiding what we do as opposed to how we deliver our moral verdicts. For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that moral judgments arise from rational and voluntary deliberations about what ought to be. The common belief today is that we reach moral decisions by consciously reasoning from principled explanations of what society determines is right or wrong. This perspective has generated the further belief that our moral psychology is founded entirely on experience and education, developing slowly and subject to considerable variation across cultures. In his groundbreaking book, Hauser shows that this dominant view is illusory. Combining his own cutting-edge research with findings in cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, economics, and anthropology, he examines the implications of his theory for issues of bioethics, religion, law, and our everyday lives.
Paperback
First published August 22, 2006
75 people are currently reading
2336 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews
June 7, 2013
There's an interesting set of moral dilemmas in this book, true. However, the author is proven to have fabricated data in his research (check wikipedia), which is THE capital sin in science and I therefore burnt the book.
Ok, I did not. But another interesting point is this: Hauser in this book attempts to argue that we got an innate moral grammar, like Chomsky's grammar of language. However, at this, he really fails even with fabricated evidence - so a double fail really.
I gave it two stars because of the moral dilemmas, which are interesting. But those can be found in other books by honest authors too.
Ok, I did not. But another interesting point is this: Hauser in this book attempts to argue that we got an innate moral grammar, like Chomsky's grammar of language. However, at this, he really fails even with fabricated evidence - so a double fail really.
I gave it two stars because of the moral dilemmas, which are interesting. But those can be found in other books by honest authors too.
March 29, 2012
Interesting book, but given the author's subsequent disgrace for faking research data, book is not trustworthy.
December 2, 2010
how evolution shaped our morals.. and religion destroyed them
June 28, 2007
My first Goodreads review...here goes. Moral Minds is the latest book from Marc Hauser, a cognitive ethologist (for lack of a better or more accurate title) who has written widely on animal behavior, communication and cognition. His last book 'Animal Minds' made me want to read this one, and it's probably the most interesting book I've read so far this year.
In Moral Minds, Hauser sketches an outline for a theory of an innate moral capacity in humans. Using Noam Chomsky's theory of language in humans as both a guide and a comparison, Hauser argues that human beings are endowed with an innate, genetic set of moral guidelines. Like with language, humans differ widely in the parameters of their own moral endowments. But Hauser uses many hypothetical moral situations to show that certain moral inclinations seem to hold for all, or at least the vast majority, of humans. This book is at once incredibly thought provoking for anyone who is interested in an essentially scientific explanation for human morality, and very readable for anyone not really familiar with the history of philosophy, cognitive science, or linguistics.
For me, this is the kind of work that will define the human search for the real meaning of what it is to be moral and act in a moral way for many years to come. Hauser has given us a very good and accessible start with this book.
In Moral Minds, Hauser sketches an outline for a theory of an innate moral capacity in humans. Using Noam Chomsky's theory of language in humans as both a guide and a comparison, Hauser argues that human beings are endowed with an innate, genetic set of moral guidelines. Like with language, humans differ widely in the parameters of their own moral endowments. But Hauser uses many hypothetical moral situations to show that certain moral inclinations seem to hold for all, or at least the vast majority, of humans. This book is at once incredibly thought provoking for anyone who is interested in an essentially scientific explanation for human morality, and very readable for anyone not really familiar with the history of philosophy, cognitive science, or linguistics.
For me, this is the kind of work that will define the human search for the real meaning of what it is to be moral and act in a moral way for many years to come. Hauser has given us a very good and accessible start with this book.
April 15, 2019
This book was a slog. It also contained a packet of pro-life literature some kind soul must've shoved in it after it was shelved. (More info: https://youtu.be/rzNjPn1l86w) Hauser's argument of a moral structure similar to Chomsky's linguistic theory is compelling. His use of Humean, Kantian, or Rawlsian "creatures" to illustrate philosophical stances also works well though it can get a bit annoying after a few hundred pages, especially when the Kantian one disappears without good reason. Hauser brings a mountain of evidence, including studies on animal morality, to support his theory of an innate moral structure. Unfortunately, I got bored halfway through the book due to the incredible amount of detail and biological studies. Good for research, but definitely not light reading.
January 22, 2015
Hauser argues that we have an innate moral faculty. Like the language instinct of Chomsky, a moral “organ” is built into our biology. Evidence for this he states is seen cross-culturally, in a universal propensity for fairness and reciprocity, and within young infants. As to what this moral faculty is, Hauser contrasts his favored Rawlsian position with Hume’s emotions and Kant’s pure logic, yet draws lessons from each. From Rawls, Hauser states that moral principles are innate and unconscious. We judge for fairness (strict equality) with empathetic support (a “rational benevolence”) for those who are more in need (i.e., these are Rawls’ two principles of justice).
I don’t believe this account of our “moral faculty" is accurate. Rawls speaks of our freedom -- the innate need to move unimpeded and, thereby, to do what is necessary to survive and promote our well being –- and the need to restrict that freedom when it impedes the freedom of others to do the same. While there's a moral logic involved here (that we must respect the freedom of others if we are to enjoy our own freedom), others see an opposing logic that says they do not have to restrict their freedom out of deference to others if they are able to manipulate, deceive (ironically, operating under a “veil of ignorance”). Both approaches work in terms of evolutionary survival and this might explain what we see throughout our history – the twin poles of behavior and everything in between.
The description above is, in a sense, a utilitarian calculus, with some opting for fairness and others opting for more self-oriented actions. The former approach is buttressed in many individuals by the innate sense of fairness and benevolence that Hauser states is Rawls’ position. But rather than making this a universal characteristic of human nature, it could be a subset that applies to some individuals more than others, though even this sense of fairness and benevolence may not extend to humanity as such but only to our “tribe.”
Hauser extensively cites this study and that study and it’s easy to get lost and overwhelmed and to lose the main current of his argument. I also believe he misreads Piaget. After making a gratuitous comment (if Piaget had “only read Aristotle”), Hauser states that Piaget failed to explain how children move through the stages of moral development. Piaget it seems to me is clear enough on that point. As the child develops, physically, it is also encountering the “shocks and opposition” (Piaget’s words) from the world that force the child to progressively de-center and to view itself necessarily as part of a larger environment that it must accommodate. Ultimately, and theoretically, this ends in the abstract fourth stage where a young adult has the capacity to transcend the here and now and think in universal, moral terms (i.e., a Kantian like hypothetical imperative – that states that it is in one’s interest to respect the other as an end; or a golden-rule type principle in all of its variations). However, this presupposes a motivation to want to follow such a standard. If that motivation is absent, the standard means nothing. Hauser presumes that such a motivation is universal (from the “moral organ” or “moral faculty”), but it is more likely that humans vary in their predominant, overall motivation between the twin poles of egocentrism and other-regarding behavior.
I don’t believe this account of our “moral faculty" is accurate. Rawls speaks of our freedom -- the innate need to move unimpeded and, thereby, to do what is necessary to survive and promote our well being –- and the need to restrict that freedom when it impedes the freedom of others to do the same. While there's a moral logic involved here (that we must respect the freedom of others if we are to enjoy our own freedom), others see an opposing logic that says they do not have to restrict their freedom out of deference to others if they are able to manipulate, deceive (ironically, operating under a “veil of ignorance”). Both approaches work in terms of evolutionary survival and this might explain what we see throughout our history – the twin poles of behavior and everything in between.
The description above is, in a sense, a utilitarian calculus, with some opting for fairness and others opting for more self-oriented actions. The former approach is buttressed in many individuals by the innate sense of fairness and benevolence that Hauser states is Rawls’ position. But rather than making this a universal characteristic of human nature, it could be a subset that applies to some individuals more than others, though even this sense of fairness and benevolence may not extend to humanity as such but only to our “tribe.”
Hauser extensively cites this study and that study and it’s easy to get lost and overwhelmed and to lose the main current of his argument. I also believe he misreads Piaget. After making a gratuitous comment (if Piaget had “only read Aristotle”), Hauser states that Piaget failed to explain how children move through the stages of moral development. Piaget it seems to me is clear enough on that point. As the child develops, physically, it is also encountering the “shocks and opposition” (Piaget’s words) from the world that force the child to progressively de-center and to view itself necessarily as part of a larger environment that it must accommodate. Ultimately, and theoretically, this ends in the abstract fourth stage where a young adult has the capacity to transcend the here and now and think in universal, moral terms (i.e., a Kantian like hypothetical imperative – that states that it is in one’s interest to respect the other as an end; or a golden-rule type principle in all of its variations). However, this presupposes a motivation to want to follow such a standard. If that motivation is absent, the standard means nothing. Hauser presumes that such a motivation is universal (from the “moral organ” or “moral faculty”), but it is more likely that humans vary in their predominant, overall motivation between the twin poles of egocentrism and other-regarding behavior.
March 28, 2009
Wow. What a beast.
I've read bigger, thicker, and denser nonfiction texts, but for some reason this book was one of those that just continually drew itself out. I fell back to all of the usual tactics involved in reading a book that just never fully engages you: pick up other books to read simultaneously, read it in short, 3-page segments, forced reading sessions with the primary goal of "just finishing it finally" ...
That said, I find it to be a little bit disappointing considering that this book's content fascinates me, its thesis is intelligent and convincing, and its referenced scientific research is plucked from diverse and leading sources. It's primary downfall is in its presentation; the author is simply too verbose and repeats himself too often. Furthermore, I never had a good sense of cohesion of the layout. Each chapter is split into sections which each follow the same generic composition and this renders each section indistinguishable from the previous. I could have pulled as much from this book by skipping and skimming out of order as I did from reading it linearly.
The negative aspects aside, I found the fusion of evolutionary biology, cognitive science, child development, neuroscience, philosophy, and animal studies to be both interdiscplinary and well-tied together. I now have the "bigger picture", with insight into a number of research domains of which I was previously ignorant.
Let me save you 568 pages of details: Hauser's primary thesis is that humans are endowed with an abstract, innate capacity to develop a moral system. This moral system is parameterized and tweaked by experience and culture. The two overarching analogies that he uses are that of natural language and of the immune system. Each of us has the capacity to be exposed to and to learn whichever language or diseases we encounter in our lifetime, but the abstract principles and ability to acquire a language (or an immunity) are shared amongst all mankind. Further, mankind shares many of the underlying principles with its evolutionary ancestors -- leaving only certain capacities unique to humans.
He further shows that neither nature nor nurture can fully explain our moral reactions. This leads to one of his better points in the book: our moral system often comes pre-loaded to some extent and remains impenetrable to cognitive reflection. When we are asked to justify why certain moral decisions were made, we are unable to directly unearth reasonable justification -- it simply comes intuitively. This intuition, Hauser argues, comes from the manner in which our abstract moral system has been set vis a vis the parameters both by experience during the course of our lives as well as the evolutionary course of life in general (other animals).
Drawing from many studies he does a good job of showing where evidence falls on his side and where research results are still, as he consistently refers to it, "terra incognita". This makes the book a bit more balanced.
In summary: if you plan on reading this book, I'd suggest hopping around and reading what's interesting to you. It is poorly organized and the writing is not super captivating. On the other hand, it's consistently intellectually stimulating and you'll walk away with heaps of knowledge from a large set of interconnected domains.
I've read bigger, thicker, and denser nonfiction texts, but for some reason this book was one of those that just continually drew itself out. I fell back to all of the usual tactics involved in reading a book that just never fully engages you: pick up other books to read simultaneously, read it in short, 3-page segments, forced reading sessions with the primary goal of "just finishing it finally" ...
That said, I find it to be a little bit disappointing considering that this book's content fascinates me, its thesis is intelligent and convincing, and its referenced scientific research is plucked from diverse and leading sources. It's primary downfall is in its presentation; the author is simply too verbose and repeats himself too often. Furthermore, I never had a good sense of cohesion of the layout. Each chapter is split into sections which each follow the same generic composition and this renders each section indistinguishable from the previous. I could have pulled as much from this book by skipping and skimming out of order as I did from reading it linearly.
The negative aspects aside, I found the fusion of evolutionary biology, cognitive science, child development, neuroscience, philosophy, and animal studies to be both interdiscplinary and well-tied together. I now have the "bigger picture", with insight into a number of research domains of which I was previously ignorant.
Let me save you 568 pages of details: Hauser's primary thesis is that humans are endowed with an abstract, innate capacity to develop a moral system. This moral system is parameterized and tweaked by experience and culture. The two overarching analogies that he uses are that of natural language and of the immune system. Each of us has the capacity to be exposed to and to learn whichever language or diseases we encounter in our lifetime, but the abstract principles and ability to acquire a language (or an immunity) are shared amongst all mankind. Further, mankind shares many of the underlying principles with its evolutionary ancestors -- leaving only certain capacities unique to humans.
He further shows that neither nature nor nurture can fully explain our moral reactions. This leads to one of his better points in the book: our moral system often comes pre-loaded to some extent and remains impenetrable to cognitive reflection. When we are asked to justify why certain moral decisions were made, we are unable to directly unearth reasonable justification -- it simply comes intuitively. This intuition, Hauser argues, comes from the manner in which our abstract moral system has been set vis a vis the parameters both by experience during the course of our lives as well as the evolutionary course of life in general (other animals).
Drawing from many studies he does a good job of showing where evidence falls on his side and where research results are still, as he consistently refers to it, "terra incognita". This makes the book a bit more balanced.
In summary: if you plan on reading this book, I'd suggest hopping around and reading what's interesting to you. It is poorly organized and the writing is not super captivating. On the other hand, it's consistently intellectually stimulating and you'll walk away with heaps of knowledge from a large set of interconnected domains.
April 28, 2010
Explores the idea that, parallel to our natural language instinct, we ahve a moral instinct. Much reference to studies of children and their development between 3 and 5. Much loooking at non-human moral activities such as sharing, reciprocity, and evaluations for punishment. He believes, but cannot prove, that we have an essential moral grammar -- a capability and lean toward moral issues. But the content is like the distinct words that a child takes up as she lives with a particular language -- the content is consistent with the group in which we grow up. Perhaps he too-tightly binds himself to the parallel with language. This is a good book as far as propounding a theory and trying to show some roots. But this is a HUGE task and, with his very-detailed descriptions of experiments, he does not get to a sharp proof.
September 25, 2008
We're reading this book in Dershowitz's class right now. It's a pretty interesting theory: the author contends that all of humanity is born with an innate and biological sense of morality, very similar to Noam Chomsky's belief in an innate and biological language structure. We're not finished yet, but so far, it's a very interesting theory that I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by. Certainly worth reading.
August 20, 2012
This book, to me, signals the empiricist taking the stage in an age-old philosophical battle. Is morality something we have been imbued with by evolution or is it something more mystical. Hauser -very persuasively- argues towards teh evolutionary side. Granted, this is new territory for science but they are making some headway. Although it is dry at times, you will walk away from this with a new outlook.
September 13, 2007
Marc Hauser presents some compelling experiments, studies, and thought-provoking scenarios that would cause one to examine their "moral" code. He shows that we have an innate moral faculty.
I found the book a bit long and wordy, however. Hauser seemed to provide a lot of detail but failed to make it clear how his examples support his argument.
I found the book a bit long and wordy, however. Hauser seemed to provide a lot of detail but failed to make it clear how his examples support his argument.
March 15, 2010
Marc Hauser presents his theory of morality based on a biological system analogous to the language system, that sets basic operating rules which are shaped during development. While the content and research review is interesting and relevant to those interest in the field, the author's writing is confusing and the evidence presented makes a weak case for his argument.
January 3, 2011
This book was so cool. Never have I found a really thick and heavy work of academic literature so fascinating. This isnt a book that you have to pick up two or three times to get through. He approaches the findings from his research so eloquently that it makes this unique piece of what would usually be dry philosophy pure gold and a non stop learning experience.
April 9, 2011
This is an excellent book. Not only does it present a ton of information, it does so in a way that's accessible to everyone. Unlike others I'd discussed this book with, I actually enjoyed the pictures and simplified examples. It made for some lighter reading despite its delving into a question that is both scientifically valid and complicated in answer.
June 22, 2015
Thoroughly discredited as an academic. Still a good read.
July 9, 2025
Menti morali. Le origini naturali del bene e del male di Marc Hauser è un libro che ha suscitato un grande dibattito nel campo della filosofia morale. L'autore sostiene che la morale abbia un'origine naturale, radicata nella nostra biologia e nella nostra storia evolutiva.
Hauser inizia il libro discutendo la tradizionale visione della morale come un prodotto della cultura e dell'educazione. Secondo questa visione, i nostri giudizi morali sono determinati dalle norme e dai valori della società in cui viviamo. Hauser sostiene che questa visione è inadeguata, in quanto non riesce a spiegare come le persone di culture diverse possano condividere valori morali fondamentali.
Per sostenere la sua tesi, Hauser presenta una serie di argomenti. In primo luogo, osserva che i bambini piccoli mostrano un senso di giustizia e di altruismo anche prima di essere esposti alle norme morali della loro cultura. In secondo luogo, mostra che le persone con danni cerebrali specifici possono perdere la capacità di giudicare moralmente. In terzo luogo, dimostra che animali non umani, come i primati, mostrano comportamenti che sono considerati moralmente virtuosi.
Hauser conclude che questi risultati suggeriscono che la morale abbia una base biologica. Egli sostiene che gli esseri umani sono dotati di un "modulo morale" che ci consente di elaborare le informazioni morali e di prendere decisioni morali.
Il libro di Hauser è un'importante contributo al dibattito sulla natura della morale. Esso fornisce una visione innovativa della morale che pone in discussione la visione tradizionale.
Punti di forza:
L'autore presenta una serie di argomenti convincenti a sostegno della sua tesi.
Il libro è ben scritto e coinvolgente.
L'autore è un esperto del campo della psicologia evolutiva.
Punti deboli:
Alcune conclusioni dell'autore sono controverse.
Il libro è un po' tecnico per i lettori non esperti di psicologia evolutiva.
Conclusione:
Menti morali. Le origini naturali del bene e del male è un libro importante che merita di essere letto da chiunque sia interessato alla filosofia morale.
Hauser inizia il libro discutendo la tradizionale visione della morale come un prodotto della cultura e dell'educazione. Secondo questa visione, i nostri giudizi morali sono determinati dalle norme e dai valori della società in cui viviamo. Hauser sostiene che questa visione è inadeguata, in quanto non riesce a spiegare come le persone di culture diverse possano condividere valori morali fondamentali.
Per sostenere la sua tesi, Hauser presenta una serie di argomenti. In primo luogo, osserva che i bambini piccoli mostrano un senso di giustizia e di altruismo anche prima di essere esposti alle norme morali della loro cultura. In secondo luogo, mostra che le persone con danni cerebrali specifici possono perdere la capacità di giudicare moralmente. In terzo luogo, dimostra che animali non umani, come i primati, mostrano comportamenti che sono considerati moralmente virtuosi.
Hauser conclude che questi risultati suggeriscono che la morale abbia una base biologica. Egli sostiene che gli esseri umani sono dotati di un "modulo morale" che ci consente di elaborare le informazioni morali e di prendere decisioni morali.
Il libro di Hauser è un'importante contributo al dibattito sulla natura della morale. Esso fornisce una visione innovativa della morale che pone in discussione la visione tradizionale.
Punti di forza:
L'autore presenta una serie di argomenti convincenti a sostegno della sua tesi.
Il libro è ben scritto e coinvolgente.
L'autore è un esperto del campo della psicologia evolutiva.
Punti deboli:
Alcune conclusioni dell'autore sono controverse.
Il libro è un po' tecnico per i lettori non esperti di psicologia evolutiva.
Conclusione:
Menti morali. Le origini naturali del bene e del male è un libro importante che merita di essere letto da chiunque sia interessato alla filosofia morale.
June 8, 2019
Marc Hauser's eminently readable and comprehensive book Moral Minds is revolutionary. He argues that humans have evolved a universal moral instinct, unconsciously propelling us to deliver judgments of right and wrong independent of gender, education, and religion. Experience tunes up our moral actions, guiding what we do as opposed to how we deliver our moral verdicts.
For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that moral judgments arise from rational and voluntary deliberations about what ought to be. The common belief today is that we reach moral decisions by consciously reasoning from principled explanations of what society determines is right or wrong. This perspective has generated the further belief that our moral psychology is founded entirely on experience and education, developing slowly and subject to considerable variation across cultures. In his groundbreaking book, Hauser shows that this dominant view is illusory.
Combining his own cutting-edge research with findings in cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, economics, and anthropology, he examines the implications of his theory for issues of bioethics, religion, law, and our everyday lives.
For hundreds of years, scholars have argued that moral judgments arise from rational and voluntary deliberations about what ought to be. The common belief today is that we reach moral decisions by consciously reasoning from principled explanations of what society determines is right or wrong. This perspective has generated the further belief that our moral psychology is founded entirely on experience and education, developing slowly and subject to considerable variation across cultures. In his groundbreaking book, Hauser shows that this dominant view is illusory.
Combining his own cutting-edge research with findings in cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, economics, and anthropology, he examines the implications of his theory for issues of bioethics, religion, law, and our everyday lives.
November 29, 2020
I read /Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong/, by former Harvard psychologist Marc Hauser.
Quick review: https://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1...
The book is well-researched, well-structured, and well-written.
I loved the beginning but began to lose interest as I progressed through the 500+ page book (no fault of the book - just not quite as much my thing as I thought when I purchased the book).
I think I might have preferred reading /Immoral Minds/. :)
I think I might have preferred reading Immoral Minds.
Quick review: https://tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1...
The book is well-researched, well-structured, and well-written.
I loved the beginning but began to lose interest as I progressed through the 500+ page book (no fault of the book - just not quite as much my thing as I thought when I purchased the book).
I think I might have preferred reading /Immoral Minds/. :)
I think I might have preferred reading Immoral Minds.
November 2, 2017
OK, so it's l-o-n-g. But it's also fascinating. I like non-fiction for before-sleep reading, and while this book does not put you to sleep, it's easy to tell when the brain says "enough for now" and it's easy to pick up where you left off. I think I also like it because it confirms (after three children) what I already knew!
May 22, 2022
La morale è determinata dall'esperienza o dall'educazione?
Alla nascita si possiede già una base morale o la si acquisisce completamente nel corso degli anni?
Il libro propone alcune spiegazioni attingendo alla psicologa, alla filosofia, e, ovviamente, alla biologia, alla genetica e...alla linguistica.
Alla nascita si possiede già una base morale o la si acquisisce completamente nel corso degli anni?
Il libro propone alcune spiegazioni attingendo alla psicologa, alla filosofia, e, ovviamente, alla biologia, alla genetica e...alla linguistica.
November 24, 2023
So interesting in the very beginning but repetitive from the middle to the end. It is certain that each research worth it but lacks of emotion. It is a pity because there are valuable information. Ends up in a bunch of copy and paste papers and researches.
November 24, 2017
Very interesting.
June 12, 2019
Mind expanding
August 16, 2010
Very cool examples of moral dilemmas. Ties in the evolutionary development of the moral mind. Starts to drag a lot in the last 1/3rd.
From Publishers Weekly
How do humans develop their capacity to make moral decisions? Harvard biologist Hauser (Wild Minds) struggles to answer this and other questions in a study that is by turns fascinating and dull. Drawing on the linguistic theories of Noam Chomsky, Hauser argues that humans have a universal moral grammar, an instinctive, unconscious tool kit for constructing moral systems. For example, although we might not be able to articulate immediately the moral principle underlying the ban on incest, our moral faculty instinctually declares that incest is disgusting and thus impermissible. Hauser's universal moral grammar builds on the 18th-century theories of moral sentiments devised by Adam Smith and others. Hauser also asserts that nurture is as important as nature: "our moral faculty is equipped with a universal set of rules, with each culture setting up particular exceptions to these rules." All societies accept the moral necessity of caring for infants, but Eskimos make the exception of permitting infanticide when resources are scarce. Readers unfamiliar with philosophy will be lost in Hauser's labyrinthine explanations of Kant, Hume and Rawls, and Hauser makes overly large claims for his theory's ability to guide us in making more moral, and more enforceable, laws. (Sept. 1)
From Scientific American
You are driving a train when you see five hikers on the track ahead of you and a siding with a single hiker. Is it okay to flip a switch and send the train onto the siding, killing one hiker but saving five? Most people say yes. Would it be okay for a doctor to harvest organs from a healthy person to save five patients? Most people say no. But they often do not have a clue why they think one of these choices is okay and the other is not. And that fact is a clue that we have an innate moral faculty. Like competent speakers who do not understand the grammatical underpinnings of language, people tend to have strong, gut-level opinions about what is moral but are unable to give coherent explanations. Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard University psychologist, wants to do for morality what Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist Noam Chomsky did for language—he wants to discover the universal "moral grammar." Chomsky suggested that humans are born with a "universal grammar," a cognitive capacity that helps us acquire language and shapes the way we apply language rules. Hauser thinks our moral grammar works the same way, helping us isolate moral lessons from our culture and make judgments about right and wrong. In Moral Minds, Hauser reviews what we already know about innate human faculties—for instance, that even infants seem to understand that people and animals have intentions, whereas inanimate objects do not. And he presents evidence that our universal morality is probably based on rules about fairness, proportionality and reciprocity, among other things. The material is captivating and ranges from philosophy to anthropology to psychology, including some of Hauser’s own original work. Hauser’s main failing is that he sometimes loses the thread of his argument; he piles on the detail but fails to make it clear how his examples support his argument. The upshot, though, is that we do not yet know exactly how our moral grammar works or even which cognitive capacities contribute to our moral faculty. Hauser’s achievement is to argue convincingly that such a faculty exists and to raise some of the many questions that have to be answered before we will fully understand it.
From Publishers Weekly
How do humans develop their capacity to make moral decisions? Harvard biologist Hauser (Wild Minds) struggles to answer this and other questions in a study that is by turns fascinating and dull. Drawing on the linguistic theories of Noam Chomsky, Hauser argues that humans have a universal moral grammar, an instinctive, unconscious tool kit for constructing moral systems. For example, although we might not be able to articulate immediately the moral principle underlying the ban on incest, our moral faculty instinctually declares that incest is disgusting and thus impermissible. Hauser's universal moral grammar builds on the 18th-century theories of moral sentiments devised by Adam Smith and others. Hauser also asserts that nurture is as important as nature: "our moral faculty is equipped with a universal set of rules, with each culture setting up particular exceptions to these rules." All societies accept the moral necessity of caring for infants, but Eskimos make the exception of permitting infanticide when resources are scarce. Readers unfamiliar with philosophy will be lost in Hauser's labyrinthine explanations of Kant, Hume and Rawls, and Hauser makes overly large claims for his theory's ability to guide us in making more moral, and more enforceable, laws. (Sept. 1)
From Scientific American
You are driving a train when you see five hikers on the track ahead of you and a siding with a single hiker. Is it okay to flip a switch and send the train onto the siding, killing one hiker but saving five? Most people say yes. Would it be okay for a doctor to harvest organs from a healthy person to save five patients? Most people say no. But they often do not have a clue why they think one of these choices is okay and the other is not. And that fact is a clue that we have an innate moral faculty. Like competent speakers who do not understand the grammatical underpinnings of language, people tend to have strong, gut-level opinions about what is moral but are unable to give coherent explanations. Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard University psychologist, wants to do for morality what Massachusetts Institute of Technology linguist Noam Chomsky did for language—he wants to discover the universal "moral grammar." Chomsky suggested that humans are born with a "universal grammar," a cognitive capacity that helps us acquire language and shapes the way we apply language rules. Hauser thinks our moral grammar works the same way, helping us isolate moral lessons from our culture and make judgments about right and wrong. In Moral Minds, Hauser reviews what we already know about innate human faculties—for instance, that even infants seem to understand that people and animals have intentions, whereas inanimate objects do not. And he presents evidence that our universal morality is probably based on rules about fairness, proportionality and reciprocity, among other things. The material is captivating and ranges from philosophy to anthropology to psychology, including some of Hauser’s own original work. Hauser’s main failing is that he sometimes loses the thread of his argument; he piles on the detail but fails to make it clear how his examples support his argument. The upshot, though, is that we do not yet know exactly how our moral grammar works or even which cognitive capacities contribute to our moral faculty. Hauser’s achievement is to argue convincingly that such a faculty exists and to raise some of the many questions that have to be answered before we will fully understand it.
February 7, 2009
Hauser, a psychology professor, focuses his attention in this book on fairness.
28 Empathy moves as a form of contagion, like a game of emotional tag. [It spreads more easily by personal contact.:]
97 A social norm functions as a group marker, a signature of shared beliefs.
133 Machismo dominates in the South, leading to a culture of honor.
135 In the South, not only are people more likely to respond aggressively to insult, but they expect others to respond violently to insult.
137 There are innate differences in our capacity to delay gratification. Impulsive people discount the future, and the temptation for immediate gratification rules them.
140 Breaking with authority is hard.
199 Disgust is the single most irresponsible emotion, a feeling that has led to extreme in-group—out group divisions followed by inhumane treatment. Digust's trick is simple: Declare those you don't like to be vermin or parasites, and it is easy to think of them as disgusting, deserving of exclusion, dismissal, and annihilation. All horrific cases of human abuse entail this kind of transformation, from Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib.
212 One of the downsides to essentialist thinking is that we readily develop stereotypes and prejudices. These bear directly on how our moral faculty shapes both our judgments and our behavior. When countries or particular social classes have attempted to dominate other groups, they have classically done so by moving the other group further and further away from what is prototypically human.
214 Moral systems ultimately rely on forward-looking individuals who can bypass, for self and other, the temptation to feed immediate self-interest.
216 Impatience or impulsivity in children is an excellent predictor of who will transgress the mores of the culture.
263 The intended outcome of a white lie is often to avoid harming someone else.
273-274 The vast literature on the deficits in our reasoning capabilities accurately suggests that, unlike walking, seeing, or hearing, general reasoning is hard and requires experience and often explicit tutelage. There is one context, however, in which our reasoning abilities are like fine-tuned machines: social contracts and systems of exchange.
294 Violations of precautions elicit fear; violations of social contracts elicit anger.
295 The causal-intentional aspects of action and the emotions they trigger are the core properties of our moral faculty.
311 Reciprocity is an act of self-interest, because it is driven by the expectation of a fair return.
312 Natural selection build organisms with complex design features based on a nonrandom but directionless process.
28 Empathy moves as a form of contagion, like a game of emotional tag. [It spreads more easily by personal contact.:]
97 A social norm functions as a group marker, a signature of shared beliefs.
133 Machismo dominates in the South, leading to a culture of honor.
135 In the South, not only are people more likely to respond aggressively to insult, but they expect others to respond violently to insult.
137 There are innate differences in our capacity to delay gratification. Impulsive people discount the future, and the temptation for immediate gratification rules them.
140 Breaking with authority is hard.
199 Disgust is the single most irresponsible emotion, a feeling that has led to extreme in-group—out group divisions followed by inhumane treatment. Digust's trick is simple: Declare those you don't like to be vermin or parasites, and it is easy to think of them as disgusting, deserving of exclusion, dismissal, and annihilation. All horrific cases of human abuse entail this kind of transformation, from Auschwitz to Abu Ghraib.
212 One of the downsides to essentialist thinking is that we readily develop stereotypes and prejudices. These bear directly on how our moral faculty shapes both our judgments and our behavior. When countries or particular social classes have attempted to dominate other groups, they have classically done so by moving the other group further and further away from what is prototypically human.
214 Moral systems ultimately rely on forward-looking individuals who can bypass, for self and other, the temptation to feed immediate self-interest.
216 Impatience or impulsivity in children is an excellent predictor of who will transgress the mores of the culture.
263 The intended outcome of a white lie is often to avoid harming someone else.
273-274 The vast literature on the deficits in our reasoning capabilities accurately suggests that, unlike walking, seeing, or hearing, general reasoning is hard and requires experience and often explicit tutelage. There is one context, however, in which our reasoning abilities are like fine-tuned machines: social contracts and systems of exchange.
294 Violations of precautions elicit fear; violations of social contracts elicit anger.
295 The causal-intentional aspects of action and the emotions they trigger are the core properties of our moral faculty.
311 Reciprocity is an act of self-interest, because it is driven by the expectation of a fair return.
312 Natural selection build organisms with complex design features based on a nonrandom but directionless process.
February 21, 2017
A mess of a book in a field that I find fascinating. Hausser fails to get his rather simple points accross as they are submerged in excessive and sometimes irrelevant examples. I found it difficult to grasp the message of this book other than him arguing heatedly in favor of an evolved moral faculty. Whether the examples and science he cites backs that up or not was quite hard to tell. Two stars for being an easy read, but other than that this is very skipable.
March 18, 2014
This I must admit, was a riveting read. I had to consciously put aside the fact that the author, since writing this book several years ago, has been charged and investigated for fraudulent scientific findings.
Nonetheless, the very subject of morality is, or should be, a universal human concern so i was interested in his theories on the matter.
Hauser essentially makes distinctions between the deontological, 'Kantian' creature, where morality is rules rather than outcome based; the 'Humean' creature in whom emotions and empathy primarily drive decision making and moral actions, and the 'Lockean' creature, whose 'justice as fairness' outlook runs on implicit action analyses, leading to judgment and then emotions. Obviously, these creatures are named after the philosophers Immanuel Kant, David Hume and John Locke respectively.
The rest of the book then focusses on experiments and evidence (hmmm....) supporting the hypotheses that we run primarily based on Lockean and Humean principles. with the Kantian creature secondarily arising out of our cognitive elaborations based on culture and environmental context. Hence there is a major difference between moral competence and moral performance, so says Hauser.
Essentially, he proposes that like language, we all have a universal moral grammar that is neurobiologically wired, whose expression is constrained by the parameters of culture, environment and experience, He gives examples from infant and animal research that lends evidence to the proposal that the biological structure supporting this grammar is implicit, rapidly learnt and facilitates rapid responses that are out of conscious awareness.
There is much more content to this book that I am unable to cover in this short review, but despite the controversy surrounding the author, I found its greatest benefits was to provoke me to reflect more on our morality and the possibly universal nature of this. The examples of Phillipa Foot's various Trolley thought experiments were pretty cool too!
Nonetheless, the very subject of morality is, or should be, a universal human concern so i was interested in his theories on the matter.
Hauser essentially makes distinctions between the deontological, 'Kantian' creature, where morality is rules rather than outcome based; the 'Humean' creature in whom emotions and empathy primarily drive decision making and moral actions, and the 'Lockean' creature, whose 'justice as fairness' outlook runs on implicit action analyses, leading to judgment and then emotions. Obviously, these creatures are named after the philosophers Immanuel Kant, David Hume and John Locke respectively.
The rest of the book then focusses on experiments and evidence (hmmm....) supporting the hypotheses that we run primarily based on Lockean and Humean principles. with the Kantian creature secondarily arising out of our cognitive elaborations based on culture and environmental context. Hence there is a major difference between moral competence and moral performance, so says Hauser.
Essentially, he proposes that like language, we all have a universal moral grammar that is neurobiologically wired, whose expression is constrained by the parameters of culture, environment and experience, He gives examples from infant and animal research that lends evidence to the proposal that the biological structure supporting this grammar is implicit, rapidly learnt and facilitates rapid responses that are out of conscious awareness.
There is much more content to this book that I am unable to cover in this short review, but despite the controversy surrounding the author, I found its greatest benefits was to provoke me to reflect more on our morality and the possibly universal nature of this. The examples of Phillipa Foot's various Trolley thought experiments were pretty cool too!
February 20, 2010
The sub-title of the edition of this fantastic book is "The Nature of RIght and Wrong," but the sub-title of the later edition shown here is much more on point. Hauser, a professor of psychology, organismic and evolutionary biology and biological anthropology at Harvard, offers a detailed exploration of how humans developed our 'moral mind.'
Using the model of language and its development and acquistion, he shows how underlying the cross-cultural variation seen expressed in soclal norms throughout the world is a universal moral 'grammar' that functions below the level of consciousness and limits (still within a wide field of possibility) the range of moral systems.
Religious fundamentalists resist the idea that morality is grounded in biology, because they have -- among other misperceptions -- an utter lack of understanding and appreciation of how evolution works. To say that we are endowed with a universal moral grammar is to say that we have evolved general, but abstract principles for judging our actions as morally permissible or not. But there are no principles that determine which particular acts of permissible.
Equating morality with religion -- as right-wing fundamentalists like to do -- is wrong on several counts. Hauser points out two in his epilogue that I only wish fundamentalists could be open enough to at least hear! As Hauser concludes: "Appreciating the fact that we share a universal moral grammar, and that at birth we could have acquired any of the world's moral systems, should provide us with a sense of comfort, a sense that perhaps we can understand each other."
Finally, I leave off with this quote from Albert Einstein:
"I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
Using the model of language and its development and acquistion, he shows how underlying the cross-cultural variation seen expressed in soclal norms throughout the world is a universal moral 'grammar' that functions below the level of consciousness and limits (still within a wide field of possibility) the range of moral systems.
Religious fundamentalists resist the idea that morality is grounded in biology, because they have -- among other misperceptions -- an utter lack of understanding and appreciation of how evolution works. To say that we are endowed with a universal moral grammar is to say that we have evolved general, but abstract principles for judging our actions as morally permissible or not. But there are no principles that determine which particular acts of permissible.
Equating morality with religion -- as right-wing fundamentalists like to do -- is wrong on several counts. Hauser points out two in his epilogue that I only wish fundamentalists could be open enough to at least hear! As Hauser concludes: "Appreciating the fact that we share a universal moral grammar, and that at birth we could have acquired any of the world's moral systems, should provide us with a sense of comfort, a sense that perhaps we can understand each other."
Finally, I leave off with this quote from Albert Einstein:
"I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and enoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."
February 22, 2017
I found the book a bit long and wordy, however. Hauser seemed to provide a lot of detail but failed to make it clear how his examples support his argument.
January 19, 2010
Hauser, and other biologists in this field, had a great idea: instead of philosophical/theological debate about morality, which has been going on for thousands of years with no one getting anywhere (e.g., 2500 years with no real answer to the Euthyphro dilemma), let's use science! Because science can actually figure out what the heck is going on.
Hauser frames the book as a debate between Kantian (pure reason) and Humian (pure emotion) ideas about the base of ethics, and finds each inadequate alone. A Rawlsian version (fairness) is much more like what people actually use. He draws a parallel between a Chomskian innate language center, and the innate moral center in people's minds - there are generic, genetic similarities and frameworks, but specific realizations are culture/environment dependent.
A must read for anyone interested in morality, and how a naturalistic explanation is clearly the most successful.
Hauser frames the book as a debate between Kantian (pure reason) and Humian (pure emotion) ideas about the base of ethics, and finds each inadequate alone. A Rawlsian version (fairness) is much more like what people actually use. He draws a parallel between a Chomskian innate language center, and the innate moral center in people's minds - there are generic, genetic similarities and frameworks, but specific realizations are culture/environment dependent.
A must read for anyone interested in morality, and how a naturalistic explanation is clearly the most successful.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 57 reviews