Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them in Science and Inquiry

Apr 16, 2014 David Rubenstein rated it it was amazing

Shelves: philosophy, psychology, ethics

Humans have evolved the ability to be cooperative, in order to help our own survival in difficult times. This ability usually prevents us from being completely selfish. We cooperate with other members of our group, our "tribe", and solves the dilemma between "Me" and "Us". The problem is, that this same mechanism generates a different dilemma, a competition between "Us" and "Them". We find that we generally have the same moral outlook as others in our "tribe", and we do not even consider the mor Humans have evolved the ability to be cooperative, in order to help our own survival in difficult times. This ability usually prevents us from being completely selfish. We cooperate with other members of our group, our "tribe", and solves the dilemma between "Me" and "Us". The problem is, that this same mechanism generates a different dilemma, a competition between "Us" and "Them". We find that we generally have the same moral outlook as others in our "tribe", and we do not even consider the moral outlook of outsiders.

This, in a nutshell, is the basic dilemma in this excellent book by Joshua Greene. Greene is the director of the Moral Cognition Lab in Harvard University's Department of Psychology. He conducts psychological experiments, and uses the results to develop some fascinating theories about the problem of morality.

I was very much surprised by some experiments concerning the perceived risks of climate change. Contrary to what I expected, the degree of scientific literacy and numeracy is inversely correlated with the perception of risk due to climate change. Instead, the membership in a political "tribe" is a much better predictor of belief in the risks. While the vast majority of scientists believe in the risks, most people do not want to "consult" with the experts in this area. They prefer to "consult" with other members of their political sphere.

Much of the book is devoted to the famous moral dilemma of the "trolley-car". Suppose a trolley car is out of control. It will soon run over and kill a group of five workmen, unless something is done immediately. You have access to a track switch, that will switch the trolley onto a siding where only a single workman will be killed. The question is, would you pull the switch? Most people would pull the switch.

But now, here is the moral dilemma, for a somewhat different scenario. Suppose the same trolley is on course to kill five workmen. But you are up on a footbridge, and immediately in front of you is a man with an oversized backpack. If you were to push that man over the side of the bridge, the trolley car would be stopped, but that man would die. Again, would you push the man over? Most people would not.

So, why not? What is the moral difference between pulling the switch and pushing the man over the side? The outcomes would be the same, so why do most people make a distinction? Here, Joshua Greene analyzes this question in great detail. The simplest explanation, is that in the switch case, the death of the lone workman is an incidental side effect, while in the case of pushing the man over the side of the footbridge, that act is the means to an end. Greene takes these scenarios and presents a compelling theory, why most people have such a strong aversion to pushing the man off the footbridge.

Joshua Greene discusses a moral philosophy called utilitarianism. This philosophy advocates that people should act to maximize the collective level of happiness. There are plenty of critics of this philosophy, but Greene does a good job of addressing their criticisms.

Greene looks at the controversy surrounding abortions. He shows that the two sides in the controversy claim certain rights; pro-lifers claim the right to life, while pro-choice people claim that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body. Greene analyzes the controversy in some detail, and concludes that both sides have excellent arguments, and that both sides are somewhat hypocritical in their not taking their "rights" arguments to their logical conclusions. In the end, Greene concludes that any argument that relies on "rights" are specious. Instead, he recommends a pragmatic approach, that requires some deep "manual" thinking.

A leit motif throughout the book is a metaphor, which likens our moral outlook to a camera with automatic and manual settings. Evolution has given us an "automatic" mode of thinking, where we generally hold the beliefs of our tribe. But, tribes often have moral beliefs that conflict with those of other tribes, and neither set of beliefs are necessarily "better". So it behooves us to switch over to "manual" mode, and use reason to think about the issues. At the end of the book, Greene offers six pragmatic "rules" to help resolve moral issues.

If you are interested in philosophy, in morality, or sociology, I highly recommend this book. ...more

43 likes · Like · see review

Apr 10, 2016 Charlene rated it it was amazing

Shelves: neuroscience, decision-making

Brilliant! Every time I read something of Josh Greene's, I love him more. He provides some of the most exciting aspects neuroscience has to offer. Malcolm Gladwell is very popular, but people who majored in neuroscience and those practicing in the field find him frustrating because he promotes sexy science (that is just how researchers refer to neuroscience because of how it has been portrayed in the media) at the expense of actual, solid, careful science. But, Josh Greene provides all the sexy- Brilliant! Every time I read something of Josh Greene's, I love him more. He provides some of the most exciting aspects neuroscience has to offer. Malcolm Gladwell is very popular, but people who majored in neuroscience and those practicing in the field find him frustrating because he promotes sexy science (that is just how researchers refer to neuroscience because of how it has been portrayed in the media) at the expense of actual, solid, careful science. But, Josh Greene provides all the sexy-sci while also not compromising the quality of the science.

I recommend not only reading Greene's book, but also watching his talks. I had the chance to see him years ago when he was completing his work on the emotional and logical parts of the prefrontal cortex that battle it out to come to one fluid moral decision. His work in this area is absolutely spectacular. He was also working, at that time, on distance v. local empathy, which I was happy to see as a focus in this book. With his work, he helped neuroscientists answer some deep and unanswered questions.

Throughout his career, Greene has conducted brain imaging studies and questionnaires (with awesomely quirky questions and scenarios) in an effort to understand how people react differently within and between cultures. Are there universal behaviors or behaviors that more likely exist in all people? Do some cultures share similar ideologies? Are there key differences? How do the similarities and differences play out on a local and global scale? After examining his findings, he provides excellent explanations for how people come to form their moral decisions. Unlike so many researchers in similar fields, Greene avoids telling too many "just so" stories. It's not that he doesn't engage in the just-so-story thinking, but he keeps it to a minimum and seems to use the science in a more cautious way.

Greene used Daniel Kahneman's work on heuristics as a foundation for his own studies. Greene wants to know, not only how our gut reactions can fail us, but do they fail us in different ways if we are from different cultures? Some cultures are more trusting in general. Some cultures are less so. What does this mean for any standard of trust? Should we trust? Shouldn't we trust? Is there an optimal level of trust that allows us to be open but not be vulnerable to a predator? These are great questions.

Of course the reader will encounter his well used trolly dilemma. In addition to trolleyology Greene attempted to understand how people come to make (and keep or discard) ideas about climate change, abortion, politics, charity, and other moral aspects of the world. How does your local tribe (be it your political affiliation, religious affiliation, or the affiliation you have with the particular country in which you happen to live) affect what you think about issues in your local community and global concerns. Do people employ utilitarianism, or deep pragmatism as he likes to call it? His conclusions are extremely thought provoking. Is there an "ought" to which we should subscribe? If things "are", does that mean they "ought" ("is v ought problem") to be that way? How can we ever decide on any optimal moral decision making? If we want what is best for all, how can we make sure "all" really means *all*? This makes me think about the social contract and constitution, which assumed that humans had inalienable rights, but humans failed to include black humans. They were not included in the "all." It is important to think about who is not included in an of our "all" when using deep pragmatism.

It's often much easier to save a life than to save many lives. It is also easier to not help when humans are farther away from the problem. Greene forces the reader to examine some of their own silly ideas that lead to these phenomena, e.g. a child is dying but I won't save it because I value my expensive suit and don't want to ruin it vs. the person who sits at home and watches a child starve to death but doesn't donate so they can buy an expensive suit.

In the end, it seems to Greene that gut reactions are ok for local decision making but to make global decisions that are best for all, we need to overcome the heuristically-driven gut reactions to make more pragmatic decisions. ...more

5 likes · Like · see review