The Moral Instinct, Essay Example

Steven Pinker’s article in the 2008 New York Times “The Moral Instinct,” posed a number of questions such as, why is it immoral to help or harm others? Is it right to kill one person and save many? Why is it unthinkable to tear a flag? In this article, Pinker is trying to prove that moral sense is the sixth sense and he goes ahead to demonstrate how and why people view ideas as being wrong or right. He has argued that moralization is something that commands the way people think and act towards certain ideas. At times, people can be immoral, unfashionable, disagreeable, and prudent. This is part of human nature, and at one point, an individual will be in this state. However, at times it can be propelled by DNA orientation. Even though, the moral sense is universal in human beings, it keeps changing from one person to another depending on culture (Sutherland, 1974). In this article, Pinker shows that, community, fairness, purity, harm and authority are the main shapers of our morality. He argues that the lifestyle people adapt is what aligns their morality. This has led to a situation where people will land at a conclusion because of emotions, and then start working backwards to look for evidence to justify the same.

By nature, human morality is complex, and for this reason, many researchers are working hard to see how emotions can determine it. One of such research has shown that there are three parts of the brain that are affected by emotions i.e. conflict, computation and mental. Being an experimental psychologists and science author, Pinker is known for his advocacy for theory of mind and evolutionary psychology. This article is addressed to the public audience because moral sense is universal. This essay is scientific, and from the questions he starts off his article with, the attention of the reader is captured. Throughout his article, he posses questions and gives examples that promote thought. In doing this, Pinker is able to address and show the complexity of the issue of morality. In the article, Pinker has shown that moral goodness on people is in their minds and is what guides people on when to do wrong and right. To him, he is of the opinion that morality makes people feel like they have a mission to achieve. He goes ahead to show “The stirrings of morality emerge early in childhood” (Pinker, 2008, 27). This morality will keep developing as people grow up. As people mature, morality matures too. He clearly shows that morality is present when people are born, and it is made up of some elements like genes that we inherit from parents and the environment we grown in. The environment is the one that reflects morality and the moral judgments people have. I personally agree with this statement. I agree that it is through experience and normal living that morality develops and molds into what it is now. This is reflected in the saying, “We learn from our mistakes.” It is through this saying that Pinker shows the relationship between morality and the environment (Keltne, Mars & Smith, 2010).

In this article, Pinker has outlined an evolutionary explanation and approach to collective and individual moral instincts. Pinker is of the view that a small set of universal moral values makes human beings. I agree with this statement. It tallies with the argument of Noam Chomsky’s theory of cultural differences in morality and universal grammar. These theories show that different cultures are a reflection of different values. This is true when referring to the way different people behave. People of a different society behave in a unique way. This article is based on the theory of moral sense. It is a theory that is variable and universal at a given time. The five moral spheres of this theory are fairness, authority, community, harm, and purity. These spheres, just like the theory itself, are universal. Depending on the culture, these spheres are ranked differently, and they affect aspects of social life like commerce, sex, religion, diet, and government (Sutherland, 1974).

There are flabbergasting practices that occur due to harm and fairness brought about by the western elites. This has led to obsession of society morals. The fact that the Japanese fear nonconformity is a show of how the sphere of community has been violated. The dietary restrictions and holy ablutions of Orthodox Jews and Hindus are a show of purity, and the insulting of Prophet Mohamed among Muslim is authority. Considering the western countries, business, fairness and government trump the community (Keltne, Mars & Smith, 2010). For this reason, cronyism and nepotism has cropped in.

Pinker argues that he has used the five spheres to put different moral thinking through a microscope. They are also used to show rational solutions to problems that emanate in society like global warming. In the view of Pinker, the habit of moralizing problems is not good for the society. For this reason, he criticizes chief moralizers like Leon Kass and challenges them to demonstrate how people can make use of our instincts to solve problems involving morality. Even though, the wise people of the society have said that individuals can be blinded by their own sanctimony, the public discourse fails to account for this. In some scenarios, our brutal instincts have been taken to be virtues. Taking the essay “The Wisdom of Repugnance” by Leon Kass into consideration, he has argued that people should disregard reason when it comes to cloning and other biomedical technologies. Most people are opposed to the idea of cloning. This is because people react immediately and do not want to think about the future. In the modern days when everything is thought to be right as long as it is free, repulsion may be the only thing left to defend humanity. In such incidents, the people who suffer are the ones who have shallow hearts.

I tend to agree with the part of this essay that recommends the regulation of human cloning. However, using shudder test to regulate human cloning is not good. There are people who have quivered all kinds of morally irrelevant violations of purity. They have allowed themselves to mix with each other and have tolerated sodomy between men. This is unlike in the past when hate of such behavior carried the day. In those days, vaccinations, autopsies, artificial insemination, blood transfusion, and organ transplant were a sin (Milner & Browitt, 2002).

In this article, Pinker is on the right track. However, he is fast in glossing over how disconcerting these factors are. At the beginning of this essay, Pinker debunks the immature version of the selfish gene theory. He demonstrates how genes of individuals can be selfish. However, this is not reflecting human behavior. There are cases where the genes that predispose people to care for their children are selfish, but the parents who care for these children are doing it out of good will. One thing that comes out clear is that moral instincts of humans are deep rooted. I tend to agree with this because, in my view, free speeches need to be allowed except in few situations.

Personally, I am impressed, by the way; Pinker carefully organizes his ideas in a clear prose. He hits the nail on the head without fear, and reasons without animosity. He is a writer who acknowledges that morality is not an old topic in psychology, but it analyses the meaning of life. It dissects moral institutions in the society. I agree with pinker when he argues that moral considerations are remarkably different from other thoughts. This is true when certain actions humans engage in are taken into consideration. The human conception that certain actions are unfashionable, disagreeable or imprudent can be distinguished from immorality. The category into which an action is placed will depend on the social conflicts. In the modern world, there are many disagreements regarding whether actions should be seen as a virtue or a sin. In this article, Pinker changes his attitude towards smoking and gay marriages, seeing them as moralization and amoralization respectively. Amoralization of traditions has seen a rise in cultural right fear. It has eroded family values meaning that morality has been undermined. However, in this article, Pinker illustrates that morality has not been destroyed by being explained and attributed. Just like Chomsky’s universal grammar, the moral sense is rooted in the human brain. This is something I agree with.

References

Keltner, D., Marsh, J., & Smith, J. A. (2010). The compassionate instinct: the science of human goodness. New York: W.W. Norton & Co..

Milner, A., & Browitt, J. (2002). Contemporary cultural theory (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.

Pinker, S. (2008, January 13). The Moral Instinct – New York Times. The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. Retrieved March 30, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Sutherland, A. (1974). The origin and growth of the moral instinct. New York: Arno Press.