In Thinking: The New Science of Decision-Making, Problem-Solving, and Prediction, edge.org’s John Brockman has put together a collection of essays by some of the top thinkers (psychologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers) on the topic of decision-making – how and why we make discussions, and to what end. One of the best chapters is “The New Science of Morality,” which looks at the question of why we even think morally in the first place.
For the first time, we have tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature. Advances in evolutionary biology, physics, information technology, genetics, neurobiology, psychology, engineering, the chemistry of materials are all raising critical questions about what it means to be human. In the past thirty-five years this work has spawned thousands of scientific experiments, new and important evidence, and exciting new ideas about who and what we are.
Morality is ultimately a system of rules that enable groups of people to live together in reasonable harmony. Roy F. Baumeister argues that studies of brain processes will augment rather than replace other approaches to studying human behavior. He fears that the widespread neglect of the interpersonal-dimension will compromise our understanding of human nature.
A Yale study shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others’ actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger. According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality.
A Harvard cognitive neuroscientist and philosopher Joshua D. Greene sees our biggest social problems as arising from our unwitting tendency to apply moral thinking (also known as “common sense”) to the complex problems of modern life. Ourbrains trick us into thinking that we have Moral Truth on our side when in fact we don’t, and blind us to truths that our brains were not designed to appreciate.
The failure of science to address questions of meaning, morality, and values has become the primary justification for religious faith, according to Sam Harris. In doubting our ability to address these questions through rational argument and scientific inquiry, we offer a mandate to religious dogmatism, superstition, and sectarian conflict. The greater the doubt, the greater the impetus sto nurture divisive delusions.
Yale experimental philosopher Joshua Knobe’s recent research has been concerned with the impact of people’s moral judgments on their intuitions. He has offered a somewhat different view, according to which people’s ordinary way of understanding the world is infused through and through with moral considerations. Disgust has been keeping Cornell psychologist David Pizarro particularly busy, as it has been implicated by many as an emotion that plays a large role in many moral judgments.
Below are links to some chapter summaries.