Ever wondered how we can harmonize conflicting moral systems across diverse groups? How do famous philosophers like Bentham and Mill's championing of utilitarianism play into this? Can utilitarianism truly rise above tribal instincts and biases to offer a united approach to global morality? Explore these questions and dive into the complexities of morality, the human brain, and the potential of a metamorality.

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

The Tragedy of the Commons, introduced by Garrett Hardin in 1968, describes a scenario where individual herders overgraze a shared pasture, leading to its destruction. This parable highlights the conflict between individual and collective interests, a central problem in social existence. Cooperation, while sometimes straightforward, often involves complex negotiations between "Me" and "Us."

Consider Art and Bud in a rowboat facing a storm—both must row to survive, aligning their interests perfectly. However, situations where interests partially align, like Hardin's pasture, pose real challenges. Evolution has driven cooperation from molecules forming cells to humans becoming the dominant species by working together.

Human cooperation often involves subtle tensions. Even everyday interactions, like buying from a store, rely on trust, reflecting the broader need for mechanisms to enforce cooperation. Morality, as argued, evolved to address these issues, promoting altruism to prevent collective ruin.

Yet, morality faces limits. It evolved to foster cooperation within groups, not between them, leading to intergroup conflicts. For example, during the American Civil War, some soldiers couldn't bring themselves to shoot at strangers, reflecting an inherent aversion to violence—a form of minimal decency.

Cooperation is further challenged by the need for trust and reciprocity. Art and Bud, as bank robbers, must trust each other not to betray their pact. This trust can be maintained through empathy, familial bonds, or strategic emotions like anger and gratitude. Moral machinery, such as loyalty and the capacity for shame, also play crucial roles.

Humans are tribalistic, favoring in-group members over outsiders, a tendency rooted deeply in our psychology. This tribalism can manifest in various forms, from language preferences in infants to racial biases in adults.

Our moral machinery—empathy, loyalty, anger, shame, and tribalism—enables cooperation but also poses challenges for broader, intergroup cooperation. The concept of a metamorality, a higher-order moral system, is proposed to address these modern challenges, fostering peaceful coexistence among diverse groups. Understanding and adapting our moral thinking to these new circumstances is essential for collective well-being.

Can Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons Teach Us to Balance 'Me' vs. 'Us'?

In the new pastures, herders face a paradox: designed for cooperation, they still find themselves in conflict. Let's dive into why our moral machinery, adept at preventing the Tragedy of the Commons, often fails in the modern world, leading to the Tragedy of Commonsense Morality.

Tribalism and genuine value differences are two primary psychological obstacles to intertribal cooperation. While selfishness at the group level leads to Us vs. Them mentality, different groups also have contrasting moral values. For instance, Northern herders believe in individualism—wise herders shouldn't support the lazy—while Southern herders prioritize collectivism—no one should starve when others have plenty.

Cross-cultural studies, such as those by Joseph Henrich, reveal that various societies have different cooperation norms. In economic games like the Ultimatum Game, societies from around the world displayed diverse behaviors rooted in their unique economic lifestyles and degrees of market integration. For example, the whale-hunting Lamelara of Indonesia were more generous compared to the independently living Machiguenga of Peru.

Cultural studies also show stark differences in response to conflict and cooperation. Cohen and Nisbett's experiments found that Southern Americans, influenced by a culture of honor, reacted more aggressively to insults than their Northern counterparts. This culture of honor, stemming from a herding economy where reputation is crucial, contrasts with the collectivist cultures of East Asia, which emphasize group harmony.

Biased fairness, where self-interest distorts our sense of justice, often exacerbates conflicts. Experiments show that people unconsciously tailor their perceptions of fairness to suit their interests, complicating negotiations. For instance, in public school salary negotiations or environmental commons problems, biased fairness makes reaching agreements challenging.

Moreover, our tribal allegiances can shape our beliefs about facts, as seen in the polarized views on climate change among American conservatives and liberals. Studies by Dan Kahan suggest that people often align their beliefs with their cultural groups rather than expert consensus, illustrating how entrenched cultural biases can be.

Lastly, experiments on perception show how biased views can escalate conflicts. In a finger-pushing experiment, participants' perceptions of force led to an escalation of pressure, metaphorically explaining how we often underestimate the harm we cause and overestimate the harm we receive.

Despite our progress, the remaining 10 percent of unresolved issues, such as poverty, violent conflict, and global warming, present significant challenges. Understanding these six psychological tendencies—tribalism, genuine value differences, local moral commitments, biased fairness, biased beliefs, and biased perception—can help us navigate and mitigate intertribal conflicts, moving us towards a more cooperative future.

Unraveling the Tragedy of Commonsense Morality: Lessons from Henrich, Cohen, and Kahan

When Joshua was in eighth grade, he joined his school's debate team, diving into philosophical quandaries about liberty, security, and national service. This early exposure to debate sparked his interest in utilitarianism, the idea that we should act to produce the best outcomes for everyone involved. 

This philosophy, pioneered by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, became Joshua's go-to strategy in debates. It allowed him to balance values like freedom and security, promoting whatever would yield the greatest good.

Utilitarianism, however, faced challenges. In one debate, a sharp opponent cornered Joshua with a hypothetical: if a doctor could save five patients by sacrificing one healthy person for their organs, would that be right? He was stumped. This moment shook his confidence and led him to quit debating. Joshua wanted to argue for beliefs he truly held, not just for sport.

In college, Joshua explored game theory and psychology, fascinated by how we apply moral reasoning to complex problems. One professor, Paul Rozin, demonstrated the power of scientific thinking. By measuring the speed of nerve signals in our bodies using a simple hand-squeeze chain, he showed how creative methods could unravel human mysteries.

Joshua was also drawn to sociobiology, which examines social behavior through an evolutionary lens. This field explained why, evolutionarily, females are more selective in choosing mates due to their larger investment in offspring. Such insights highlighted the intersection of biology and social norms.

At Harvard, Joshua encountered "The Trolley Problem," a philosophical dilemma about sacrificing one life to save five. This problem distilled the essence of many moral debates: when do individual rights outweigh the greater good? The dilemma posed questions about human rights and utilitarianism, setting the stage for his future research.

In collaboration with neuroscientists, Joshua explored the brain's role in moral judgment. They discovered that different brain regions are active when we make utilitarian decisions versus when we respond with strong emotions. This dual-process theory reveals that our brains balance automatic emotional reactions with controlled, reasoned responses.

Joshua's research extended to real-world applications, like the moral judgments of healthcare professionals. They found that public health professionals, who focus on the greater good, were more utilitarian in their thinking than doctors, who prioritize individual patient rights.

This dual-process approach is not just about moral decisions. It's evident in everyday choices, like resisting the temptation of chocolate cake or delaying gratification for a larger reward. The brain's automatic settings are efficient, but sometimes our manual mode—the ability to think flexibly and reason—must take over.

Joshua likens our brains to dual-mode cameras, balancing automatic and manual modes. While automatic settings are efficient for familiar tasks, manual mode allows us to navigate novel challenges. This flexibility has propelled humans to thrive in diverse environments, adapting creatively and collaboratively. Understanding this dual-process framework enriches our grasp of human behavior, guiding us in making wiser choices amid life's complexities.

Is the Trolley Problem the Key to Understanding Our Brain's Moral Dilemmas?

In the complex realm of moral philosophy, the Tragedy of Commonsense Morality presents a unique challenge: how to harmonize conflicting moral systems across diverse groups. This struggle is akin to the classic Tragedy of the Commons, where individual selfishness threatens collective cooperation. 

Traditionally, morality helps resolve within-group conflicts, but it's less effective between groups, leading to the need for a metamorality—a system that adjudicates among competing moralities.

Our brains are equipped with moral machinery—empathy, honor, guilt—that supports cooperation within groups. However, tribalism and biased perceptions hinder cooperation across groups, as seen in the philosophical divide between individualistic Northerners and collectivist Southerners. Each group claims its system works best, but their beliefs are deeply rooted in cultural biases rather than objective truths.

Enter the utilitarian approach, advocating for what works best to maximize happiness, a philosophy that rises above tribal instincts. Utilitarianism, grounded in the principles of consequentialism, suggests that actions should be judged by their outcomes, emphasizing happiness as the ultimate goal. Despite its broad conception of happiness, utilitarianism is often misunderstood as promoting shallow pleasures, when in fact it encompasses a wide array of values that improve the quality of human experience.

This idea isn't new; philosophers like Bentham and Mill championed utilitarianism as a means to drive social reform by focusing on happiness as a universal metric. Yet, implementing this philosophy globally requires overcoming cultural biases and fostering a deep pragmatism that balances short-term expediency with long-term well-being.

Utilitarianism faces challenges, notably its perceived conflict with individual rights, as illustrated by the Trolley Problem, where maximizing happiness seems to violate personal rights. Moreover, measuring happiness poses practical challenges, though it's feasible through population studies rather than individual assessments.

The search for a common moral currency raises questions about divine, mathematical, and scientific bases for morality. While divine will and pure reasoning offer limited guidance, science suggests that morality evolved to promote cooperation. However, cooperation alone is not the ultimate moral good; the true measure lies in the happiness and relief from suffering it brings.

In short, utilitarianism emerges as a potential metamorality, advocating for impartiality and the maximization of happiness. It challenges us to transcend tribal biases and embrace a philosophy grounded in shared human experiences. Whether or not it represents the moral truth remains debated, but its emphasis on common human values offers a promising path forward in resolving moral conflicts in our interconnected world.

Utilitarianism: Bridging Moral Divides for Global Harmony

In a captivating episode of "The Twilight Zone," a couple faces a moral dilemma when a stranger offers them $200,000 if they press a button that will cause a stranger's death. This provocative story serves as a backdrop to explore our shared values and moral decisions, starting with simple happiness choices and escalating to complex moral questions.

Question 1 asks if you would press a button to avoid a painful accident, increasing your happiness. Obviously, you would. This reveals that people prefer more happiness over less. Question 2 adds a minor inconvenience—a mosquito bite—in exchange for avoiding the accident. The trade-off is still worth it, showing we favor net happiness.

Question 3 shifts focus to another person's happiness. Would you push a button to save someone else from pain? Many would, especially if the person is known or liked. But even for strangers, most people exhibit a baseline level of altruism. Question 4 scales this up by asking if you’d save ten people over one, indicating a preference for maximizing happiness for more people.

Finally, Question 5 presents a choice between saving two from minor discomfort or one from significant pain. Most would choose to prevent the greater hardship, underscoring a preference for overall happiness.

These questions lay the groundwork for utilitarianism, a philosophy that aims to maximize happiness impartially. Despite its appeal, utilitarianism faces criticism. For instance, it might justify morally dubious actions like using a person as a human trolley-stopper or endorsing slavery if it increases overall happiness. These scenarios highlight a tension between utilitarian ideals and our automatic moral instincts.

Utilitarianism, while logical, often clashes with our gut feelings, suggesting that our brains are wired for both rational problem-solving and emotional responses. This dual-process framework explains why utilitarianism is both universally understandable and occasionally offensive.

Understanding this, we see that while utilitarianism provides a common moral ground, it is not without its challenges. It calls for a balance between maximizing happiness and respecting moral instincts, a topic that continues to spark debate among philosophers and ethicists.

Would You Sacrifice One Life to Save Many? Exploring The Twilight Zone Moral Dilemma!

In a high school debate, Joshua was starkly confronted with the unsettling implications of utilitarianism: the principle of maximizing happiness could theoretically justify horrendous acts, like forcibly taking organs or pushing someone in front of a trolley to save others. This moral quandary has led many philosophers to argue that there's more to morality than just promoting the greater good.

Utilitarianism's challenge is evident in the famous trolley problem: most people find it acceptable to flip a switch to divert a trolley from killing five people at the cost of one life but find it abhorrent to push a person off a bridge to achieve the same result. This discrepancy arises because our emotional responses are stronger in the latter scenario.

Research shows that our moral intuitions can be both oversensitive and undersensitive. For instance, in legal contexts, racial biases can skew judgments, indicating an oversensitivity to irrelevant factors, while failing to consider a defendant's age may show undersensitivity.

The trolley dilemma illustrates how "personalness" plays a role in our moral reasoning. People are more inclined to approve of actions that distance them from direct harm, like flipping a switch, versus actions involving personal force, such as pushing someone.

Moreover, our moral intuitions are influenced by whether harm is a means to an end or a side effect. We tend to morally approve actions where harm is a side effect rather than a direct means to an end, despite the fact that the eventual outcome is similar.

These moral instincts result from cognitive modules in our brains that evolved to curb premeditated violence, which was crucial for our ancestors' survival in cooperative groups. However, these modules are myopic, ignoring side effects and focusing instead on direct harm.

The distinction between actions and omissions further complicates our moral reasoning, as our brains are wired to prioritize what we actively do over what we allow to happen. This cognitive bias often leads to moral judgments that emphasize actions over inactions, irrespective of the outcomes.

In essence, while our instincts and moral intuitions are generally reliable, they are not infallible. When faced with moral dilemmas, especially those contrived to test the limits of our intuitions, it's crucial to recognize that our gut reactions may not always align with the greater good. Understanding these cognitive biases can help us navigate complex moral landscapes without granting our instincts undue authority over ethical decision-making.

Trolley Dilemma: Navigating the Moral Maze of Utilitarianism

In the quest for justice and fairness, we often find ourselves torn between utilitarian ideals and our ingrained sense of morality. Take, for instance, the idea of being a perfect utilitarian—someone who sacrifices personal indulgences to maximize the happiness of others. It's akin to trying to maintain a perfect diet; while theoretically possible, it's not practical for real humans with everyday constraints. 

Imagine you're strolling through a park and spot a child drowning. You can save them but at the cost of ruining your expensive suit. Most would agree that saving the child is paramount. Yet, why does this moral obligation fade when the child is far away and the help comes through a donation? Research by Jay Musen and others shows that our sense of duty is skewed by factors like physical distance and the identifiable victim effect. We respond more to individuals we can see or know, like Baby Jessica trapped in a well, than to statistical victims far away.

Our moral instincts often don't align with utilitarian ideals, which challenge us to look beyond immediate emotional responses. For example, utilitarianism suggests that punishment should serve the greater good, not just satisfy our desire for retribution. Yet, real-world justice systems often reflect our emotional biases, punishing based on anger rather than deterrence.

Utilitarianism also raises questions about wealth distribution and justice. Critics, like John Rawls, argue that utilitarianism might justify injustices like slavery if it increases overall happiness. However, empirical research debunks this by showing that happiness doesn't just stem from wealth, and the happiness lost by the oppressed far outweighs any gains by oppressors.

In essence, utilitarianism asks us to widen our circle of concern, acknowledging our biases and striving to improve within our human limitations. It doesn't demand perfection but encourages a thoughtful consideration of how our actions impact the broader world.

Can Utilitarianism Truly Align Morality with Justice in a World Influenced by Emotion?

We've explored biology, psychology, and philosophy. Now, how can we use this knowledge to address our moral divisions? Consider controversial topics: healthcare as a right, wealth inequality, global warming, nuclear technology, the death penalty, gay marriage, and physician-assisted suicide. How should we navigate these heated debates?

Deep pragmatism suggests we set aside ideologies and focus on what works best. This practical approach is powerful and transformative, especially when we define "best" through a shared moral standard or metamorality. This metamorality helps us make tough choices by balancing competing values. 

The first strategy appeals to an independent moral authority like God, Reason, or Science. However, none have provided non-question-begging moral truths. The second strategy, deep pragmatism, seeks common ground in shared values, using utilitarianism as a common currency. We all care about happiness and suffering, valuing everyone's experiences equally, embodying the Golden Rule.

Utilitarianism, properly understood, is our second moral compass, guiding us when gut feelings or automatic settings fail. This philosophy isn't about mundane utility or shallow hedonism but rather optimizing outcomes for happiness and minimizing suffering. It isn't a first-sight love affair but a deep, pragmatic guide to life.

We face two moral problem types: Me vs. Us (basic cooperation) and Us vs. Them (intertribal conflict). Emotions usually guide us well in Me vs. Us scenarios, promoting cooperation. But in Us vs. Them conflicts, gut feelings often clash, requiring us to shift into manual mode for practical reasoning.

Research shows that people often rationalize their moral feelings, like how men on a wobbly bridge mistook fear for attraction. Rationalization, like Kant's elaborate justification against masturbation or his views on race, hinders moral progress.

Instead of relying on gut feelings or rationalizations, we should use utilitarianism, grounded in shared values and evidence, to find solutions. This approach is crucial for divisive issues like abortion, where deep pragmatism can help navigate complex moral landscapes.

The debate over abortion exemplifies this. Both pro-choice and pro-life positions often lack coherent, evidence-based arguments. Instead, deep pragmatists consider the practical consequences of policies, focusing on overall happiness and suffering. While pro-lifers argue for the right to life from conception, deep pragmatists weigh the real-world impacts of restricting or allowing abortion.

Deep pragmatism transcends tribalism, advocating for policies that maximize happiness and minimize suffering. This approach challenges us to move beyond entrenched positions, seeking common ground and practical solutions to our most pressing moral dilemmas.

Navigating Moral Divides: The Pragmatic Path of Utilitarianism

In the beginning, life was simple. Cooperative molecules and cells formed complex organisms, from bees to bonobos, thriving on mutual sacrifice for collective success. But cooperation evolved as a competitive tool, favoring Us over Them. 

Our human brains, unlike reflexive animal brains, developed sophisticated reasoning to solve complex problems, outsmarting most natural enemies. Today, our greatest adversary is ourselves, with issues like poverty, disease, war, and climate change stemming from human choices.

Our brains drive us with both selfish impulses and social emotions like empathy, love, and guilt, shaping our morality. Yet, these emotions vary across cultures, leading to the Tragedy of Commonsense Morality—tribes clashing over what’s right or wrong. To address this, we must match our moral thinking to the problem at hand: think fast for Me versus Us, and slow for Us versus Them.

Here are six rules for modern herders navigating moral controversies:
1. Consult, but do not trust, your moral instincts: In personal matters, trust your instincts. In moral controversies, use manual reasoning, as instincts may clash.

2. Rights end arguments: Rights are tools for declaring arguments over, not for making them. Use them sparingly and wisely.

3. Focus on facts: Understand how policies work and their effects. Demand evidence and acknowledge ignorance when necessary.

4. Beware of biased fairness: Recognize that our perception of fairness is often biased towards our own interests.

5. Use common currency: Prioritize the universal human experience and the Golden Rule. Use science as a common ground for truth.

6. Give: Small sacrifices can significantly improve others' lives. Acknowledge the impact of your actions and strive to make positive changes.

By questioning our inherent moral laws and striving for better, we can foster a global tribe driven by goodness, not competition. Embrace these principles and work towards a more united and compassionate world.

Can We Transform Our Instincts to Unite a Divided World?

The core conflict between individual and collective interests is a significant problem in social existence, often requiring complex negotiations. Cooperation is essential but challenging due to inherent tensions and the need for trust and reciprocity. Morality evolved to manage these issues, promoting altruism and preventing collective ruin. However, it evolved to foster cooperation within groups, not between them, leading to intergroup conflicts.

Human tribalism, a deep-rooted psychological tendency, favors in-group members over outsiders. This manifests in various ways, from language preferences to racial biases. Our moral machinery—empathy, loyalty, anger, shame—enables cooperation but also poses challenges for broader intergroup cooperation. A higher-order moral system, or metamorality, is proposed to foster peaceful coexistence among diverse groups.

Utilitarianism, which advocates for maximizing happiness, offers a potential metamorality. It emphasizes outcomes and shared human experiences, aiming to harmonize conflicting moral systems across diverse groups. The philosophy faces challenges, such as perceived conflicts with individual rights and practical difficulties in measuring happiness. However, it provides a pragmatic approach to resolving moral conflicts.

Our moral intuitions, shaped by cognitive modules in our brains, are not infallible. They often emphasize actions over inactions and direct harm over side effects. Understanding these biases can help navigate complex moral landscapes. Utilitarianism calls for widening our circle of concern, balancing rational problem-solving with emotional responses.

Deep pragmatism, a practical approach to moral dilemmas, suggests focusing on what works best by balancing competing values. This involves setting aside ideologies and using shared values like happiness and suffering as a common currency. It encourages a thoughtful consideration of actions' broader impacts, transcending tribal biases and advocating for policies that maximize happiness and minimize suffering.

In essence, addressing moral divisions requires adapting our moral thinking to the problem at hand, consulting but not fully trusting our moral instincts, focusing on facts, and using science and shared human experiences as common ground. By embracing these principles, we can work towards a more united and compassionate world.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

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

Joshua D. Greene

Ever wondered how we can harmonize conflicting moral systems across diverse groups?

How do famous philosophers like Bentham and Mill's championing of utilitarianism play into this?

Can utilitarianism truly rise above tribal instincts and biases to offer a united approach to global morality?

Explore these questions and dive into the complexities of morality, the human brain, and the potential of a metamorality.

Key Ideas

#1