"The Moral Instinct"

[Diraker]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=science&pagewanted=print

Really good but fairly long article by Steven Pinker.

Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it’s an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in “I Hate Gates” Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?

Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the “Green Revolution” that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.

It’s not hard to see why the moral reputations of this trio should be so out of line with the good they have done. Mother Teresa was the very embodiment of saintliness: white-clad, sad-eyed, ascetic and often photographed with the wretched of the earth. Gates is a nerd’s nerd and the world’s richest man, as likely to enter heaven as the proverbial camel squeezing through the needle’s eye. And Borlaug, now 93, is an agronomist who has spent his life in labs and nonprofits, seldom walking onto the media stage, and hence into our consciousness, at all.

...

IMO as the article continues it gets better and better. It also touches on religion and politics.

[Mutt]

Yea I read something similar to that awhile back. Good read that puts a new spin on certain figures

[Diraker]

yeah Mutt I was reminded of that other article too. This one IMO is ten times better. I like that this article is written by someone with a clue rather than written by a journalist.

[Aradorn]

The Gates Foundation has donated more money since its creation than the Rockefeller foundation (which was created in 1903 or something like taht) iirc something like 14 billion dollars.

Bill Gates is definitely doing a lot of good work with his evil empire money =P

[Cinnabar]

Awesome article

[Diraker]

Similar theme different person. Another Harvard professor though.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org/marc_hauser_moral_minds/


Marc Hauser is an evolutionary psychologist and biologist. He is Harvard College Professor and Professor of Psychology, and Director of the Primate Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory at Harvard University. He is the author of a number of books, including The Evolution of Communication, Wild Minds: What Animals Think, and Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right and Wrong.

In this interview with D.J. Grothe, Marc Hauser expounds his theory that morality has biological origins while challenging the common view that morality comes from God. He compares the human capacity for morality with Noam Chomsky's notion of a universal grammar, arguing that there is a "morality module" in the brain. He explains how his theory accounts for differences in morality across cultures, and discusses how morality could have evolved and what genetic benefit it might have afforded. He also explores the implications of his theory for the legal system, and for cultural institutions like religion and the family.

I've heard of this guy but this is the first I can recall of listening to him. I like his slow and example driven style.

[Diraker]

Related article in SciAm about human brain evolution and how we share a lot with other organisms.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=intelligence-evolved

Animal Intelligence and the Evolution of the Human Mind

Key Concepts

* The human brain lacks conspicuous characteristics—such as relative or absolute size—that might account for humans' superior intellect.
* Researchers have found some clues to humanity's aptitude on a smaller scale, such as more neurons in our brain's outermost layer.
* Human intelligence may be best likened to an upgrade of the cognitive capacities of nonhuman primates rather than an exceptionally advanced form of cognition.

As far as we know, no dog can compose music, no dolphin can speak in rhymes, and no parrot can solve equations with two unknowns. Only humans can perform such intellectual feats, presumably because we are smarter than all other animal species—at least by our own definition of intelligence.

Of course, intelligence must emerge from the workings of the three-pound mass of wetware packed inside our skulls. Thus, researchers have tried to identify unique features of the human brain that could account for our superior intellectual abilities. But, anatomically, the human brain is very similar to that of other primates because humans and chimpanzees share an ancestor that walked the earth less than seven million years ago.

It goes on.

[Diraker]

Another good article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?emc=eta1

The Moral Life of Babies

Not long ago, a team of researchers watched a 1-year-old boy take justice into his own hands. The boy had just seen a puppet show in which one puppet played with a ball while interacting with two other puppets. The center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the right, who would pass it back. And the center puppet would slide the ball to the puppet on the left . . . who would run away with it. Then the two puppets on the ends were brought down from the stage and set before the toddler. Each was placed next to a pile of treats. At this point, the toddler was asked to take a treat away from one puppet. Like most children in this situation, the boy took it from the pile of the “naughty” one. But this punishment wasn’t enough — he then leaned over and smacked the puppet in the head.

...

[Mourne]

From the first article, I wanted to add that I found Mother Teresa more admirable after they found out from her diaries that she lost her faith. The reason being, is that she continued to do what she felt were good deeds without believing in a God that would reward her with access to heaven.

[Mattias]

Good and interesting read.

[Diraker]

Thanks for the comments. Mourne, I think in the past we might have talked a bit about MT. But aside from that, I agree with your sentiments. I think to be good because of the carrot of heaven or the stick of hell is an ignoble reason for being good. Why not be good for goodness's sake? But if one really is good only because of the carrot stick, then I'm all for it. Ignoble reasons or not, being good matters more.

[Soulein]

Many, if not most, Christian denominations see salvation as a gift rather than something that is obtained through devout belief or good works. To me, being a Christian is about celebrating the idea of salvation, rather than striving to obtain it.

Many Christians use the line "only through Christ can you be saved" as justification for the belief that one must worship Christ or go to hell. If one must worship Christ in order to obtain salvation, then they obviously do not believe salvation is a "gift freely given".

The article in the first thread was fascinating to say the least. I'm taking an Anthropology class right now for a transfer requirement, and I'm considering bringing it up with my Professor. It was incredibly thought provoking, especially the part about the different moral situations, where our obvious gut reactions get turned on their heads.