The Moral Instinct by Steven Pinker
Harvard Professor Steven Pinker, in his The New York article, “The Moral Instinct,” goes on to discuss his sixth or moral sense. His argument is that individuals’ moral sense can be explained using “game theory, neuroscience, and evolutionary biology.” He presented his argument as a double-sided yet balanced view of the subject on morality. He talked about moral relativism and moral illusions, as well as, the embeddedness of morality in people.
Pinker claimed that there are various explanations to morality or moral sense. What people thought of as the most admirable trait in a person may actually be the reversed when compared with what other people are doing or have done. He presented evidences why is such the case wherein there is greater weight on how a person’s action impacts the greatest number of people in terms of quality of benevolence provided.
Pinker has made several claims to support his argument. He claimed that morality prove “to be an organ of considerable complexity.” For Pinker, the moral sense equates to human beings’ conception of their worthiness or the value they put on life. He also argued that moralization could be switched on or off depending on one’s evolutionary design and neurobiological makeup – as all human beings do have. He added, however, that a minor change in the structure of the human brain can cause a person’s behavior to change from moral, amoral, or immoral – or vice versa. Under normal circumstances, nevertheless, people will have the predisposition for universally accepting and doing that which is good for themselves and others.
For Pinker, certain actions that were previously thought of as immoral may later on undergo the process of amoralization. Examples of these are previous beliefs against in vitro fertilization, blood transfusion, artificial insemination, autopsies, etc. Despite of that, Pinker does not remove from the equation that other cultures may still have an entirely different opinion about certain moral issues even in cases such as the ‘careless’ use of the name of the Islamic Prophet (in which other peoples from other countries may not take seriously).
In many respects, there are other aspects in Pinker’s text such as in rendering punitive acts or retribution to acts done against societal norms and moral rules. People who wronged others deserve to be sanctioned. If justice is rendered, people view it as fair on their part. If not, there is a problem with how people take action in order to prevent the same act from not being committed again. However, Pinker did not mention that depending on the gravity of an act, retribution may not follow suit because mercy and forgiveness may instead be applied.
Pinker likewise informed his readers about morality as a practical tactic for self-interest, perpetuation of the “selfish gene,” and alignment of moralization with lifestyle. Further, Pinker also mentioned about the difference between “societal conventions and moral principles.” He insisted that there is a marked difference between the two such as in the case of a pajama and harming a little girl. Even when a preschooler was told by a teacher that he/she can do both acts, he/she will still refrain from doing the latter because he/she has the moral instinct to follow. There are other examples that Pinker presented in his article.
Pinker also posited that moral reasoning is distinct from moral rationalization. He believes that people’s moral judgments are not only questionable the way they arrive at them. He gave examples like incest, disrespect for the US flag, and human consumption of dog meat. When people were asked justification for their moral decisions, they simply do not know the answer (reasoning behind) and cannot offer an explanation, but just admit that such is the case. However, I have a different opinion in case of incest. There are those ‘allowed’ to do it in former times for obvious reasons as mentioned in Genesis 19:31-38. Then, as people multiplied in numbers, it has been prohibited hitherto (I Corinthians 5:1).
Pinker’s organization of his thoughts is systematic and logically flows from the argument. He started with obvious examples and supporting evidences. He mentioned how people view morality and then shift gear as to who the more moral (virtuous) people are. He talked about the moral sense, moral intuitions and moral instincts, and how they can be explained by science. In the entirety of Pinker’s articles, he assured his readers that he had a balanced view of the topic by supporting it with research findings.
Pinker’s also cited various authorities in the different disciplines to support his argument, the reason he became a more credible author. His use of examples too make one able to relate and understand readily his thoughts and line of reasoning. Pinker’s readers could easily interpret the text because the contexts are there and are well-elaborated. Intentionally at best, the argument Pinker carried forward in the various sections of his text neatly explained the following: (1) why people decide and act morally; (2) why is morality universal despite peoples’ moral experiences; (3) how morality could be traced; (4) how morality is simultaneously universal and variable; (5) is there nothing sacred; (6) is morality just a figment of the mind; and, (7) does peoples’ knowledge about themselves will make them better. Overall, the various sections logical follow from the argument until such time that Pinker hits the final mark.
When it come to Pinker’s ability to persuade in his article, he did it effectively because he cited authorities, used exemplification, and supported his argument and claims with evidences from various disciplines (e.g., moral development theories, sociobiology, etc.). In some ways, Pinker’s text has the power to change an individual’s opinion concerning morality, but not all too deeply. It can be done because Pinker viewed morality scientifically and culturally. When a person reads how various research on the topics about ethics and moralities are presented by Pinker, there is a possibility to be moved and also agree. Nonetheless, despite Pinker’s numerous examples, they are not enough in the sense that they are hypothetical, limited in scope, and so on. Outside of my own perspective, for example, there are people who believe that morality is neither dependent on one’s circumstances nor in one’s predisposition to do good, but that it is innately part of humanity and not something far-fetched. Man is and will remain a moral being (except for some cases such as during wars, famines, etc.).
For my part, other readers might think and feel of Pinker’s article as detailed, informative, entertaining, and well-written. They can read again his article and find out for themselves if they would like to agree with his idea of the moral instinct. For instance, in the trolley problems, the first example is an impersonal moral dilemma whereas the second one is a personal moral dilemma. Most people will not subscribe with the idea of committing murder, especially, if the person is a non-utilitarian in that specific context/example.
In conclusion, Pinker’s article is really something one should read from start to finish. The ideas presented in it are well-balanced, systematic, packed with research findings, examples, etc. In short, Pinker ensure his readers an unbiased treatment of the subject concerning “The Moral Instinct.” Still, the argument is left opened for people to decide for themselves whether they will agree with Pinker’s claims or not.
Work Cited
Pinker, Steven. The Moral Instinct. 18 January 2008. The New York Times. Web. 27 April 2013.
