Enjoy fast, free delivery, exclusive deals, and award-winning movies & TV shows with Prime
Try Prime
and start saving today with fast, free delivery
Amazon Prime includes:
Fast, FREE Delivery is available to Prime members. To join, select "Try Amazon Prime and start saving today with Fast, FREE Delivery" below the Add to Cart button.
Amazon Prime members enjoy:- Cardmembers earn 5% Back at Amazon.com with a Prime Credit Card.
- Unlimited Free Two-Day Delivery
- Streaming of thousands of movies and TV shows with limited ads on Prime Video.
- A Kindle book to borrow for free each month - with no due dates
- Listen to over 2 million songs and hundreds of playlists
- Unlimited photo storage with anywhere access
Important: Your credit card will NOT be charged when you start your free trial or if you cancel during the trial period. If you're happy with Amazon Prime, do nothing. At the end of the free trial, your membership will automatically upgrade to a monthly membership.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
OK
Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong Paperback – September 4, 2007
Purchase options and add-ons
In his groundbreaking book, Marc Hauser puts forth a revolutionary new theory: that humans have evolved a universal moral instinct, unconsciously propelling us to deliver judgments of right and wrong independent of gender, education, and religion. Combining his cutting-edge research with the latest findings in cognitive psychology, linguistics, neuroscience, evolutionary biology, economics, and anthropology, Hauser explores the startling implications of his provocative theory vis-à-vis contemporary bioethics, religion, the law, and our everyday lives.
- Print length528 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherEcco
- Publication dateSeptember 4, 2007
- Dimensions8 x 5.32 x 1.3 inches
- ISBN-10006078072X
- ISBN-13978-0060780722
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Frequently bought together
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
“About one of the hottest new topics in intellectual life: the psychology and biology of morals. . . fascinating.” — Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology, Harvard University, and author of The Language Instinct and How the Mind Works
“An account of the nature of the human moral organ . . . a lucid, expert and challenging introduction.” — Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, MIT
“An intellectual feast that provokes thought and should stimulate critical reflection . . . a major contribution to an ongoing debate.” — Peter Singer, Professor of Bioethics, Princeton University
“The most complete attempt to bring together philosophy, anthropology, cognitive science and neuroscience... daring and wise.” — Antonio Damasio, Professor of Neuroscience, University of Southern California
“The scientific exploration of morality has advanced at a breathtaking pace… [an] enjoyable book.” — Daniel Kahneman, Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs, Princeton University, and 2002 Nobel Laureate in Economics
“For a wide audience...a superb overview of one of the hottest topics in the life sciences...a treat.” — Science
“An audacious claim about moral thought...highly accessible to a general audience...a deeply significant intellectual contribution.” — Nature
“Unlikely to disappoint.” — Nicholas Wade, New York Times
“Pathbreaking... relevant to some of the most fundamental contemporary debates in philosophy and public life.” — New York Review of Books
About the Author
Marc D. Hauser is the author of the highly acclaimed Wild Minds. He has been featured in the New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Boston Globe, as well as on Today,The Early Show, PBS's Scientific American Frontiers, and NPR. Hauser is Professor of Psychology, Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, and Biological Anthropology at Harvard University, where he is director of the Cognitive Evolution Laboratory and co-director of the Mind, Brain and Behavior Program. He is the recipient of a National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award, a Guggenheim Award, a College de France Science medal, and a Harvard College Professorship chair for his excellence in teaching.
Product details
- Publisher : Ecco; Reprint edition (September 4, 2007)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 528 pages
- ISBN-10 : 006078072X
- ISBN-13 : 978-0060780722
- Item Weight : 1 pounds
- Dimensions : 8 x 5.32 x 1.3 inches
- Best Sellers Rank: #1,917,372 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #1,170 in Humanist Philosophy
- #2,908 in General Anthropology
- #6,932 in Philosophy of Ethics & Morality
- Customer Reviews:
About the author
Marc Hauser is a scientist, educator, innovator, author, and humanist. With broad training in the biological and social sciences, as well as philosophy and linguistics, he has published over 300 scientific papers and seven books, including most recently Vulnerable Minds (2024, NY: Penguin-Random House, Avery); these papers and books can be found at marcdhauser dot com. During his 18 years as a professor at Harvard University, he worked on topics in animal cognition, moral psychology, cognitive development, cognitive neuroscience, behavioral economics, linguistics, anthropology, and philosophy. In the last 14 years, he has worked with high at-risk youths, including children with trauma, bringing the tools of the mind and brain sciences to help change their lives, including their capacity to learn and make meaningful decisions. This work continues today. He is married to Lilan Hauser and has two daughters, Alexandra and Sofia.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
The author of this book unfortunately makes use of several hypothetical ethical dilemmas to assist in building his case for a theory of ethics that could, following the same nomenclature in linguistics, be described as `generative'. Therefore, moral reasoning, like language, is the result of a particular ability of the human mind (brain) and as such is universal in its grammatical patterns, even though these patterns can vary over geographical location and be parametrized by different cultures. Morality is instinctual, the author argues, and it is unaffected by the dictates of both religion and governmental institutions. The moral grammar that the author discusses, and his arguments to support it, is of course very analogous to the generative grammar of Chomskian linguistics. He even gives an analogue of the famous `poverty of the stimulus' argument of Noam Chomsky, in that he asks whether the environment contains enough information to construct a moral grammar.
This hypothesis may at first sight appear radical, and in the jacket of the book and in the author's prologue it is advertised as such. But given the advances in cognitive neuroscience that have taken place in the last fifteen years, it now seems that an ethical theory based on scientific principles is within reach. The author claims that his is such a theory, and he endeavors to justify it with what is known in evolutionary psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and related areas. It is refreshing to hear that the author wants to finally divorce morality and religion, and he feels a sense of urgency in proposing a different outlook on morality. The traditional ones have caused us great trouble, he states emphatically.
In general the author presents a fair case for his conception of morality, but there are problems with his approach. The first deals with his use of thought experiments and his insistence, sometimes merely implicit, of the superiority of the moral philosophy of John Rawls. The author views Rawls as being one of the most important contributors to the problem of justice and fairness. The moral/ethical conceptions of Rawls are contrasted with those of Immanuel Kant and David Hume, with the Kantian conception being one characterized by duty, and the Humean emphasizing emotional responses. Rawls, at least the way the author understands him, asserts that moral judgments are driven by principles that are not part of conscious awareness. Even more interesting for the Rawlsian viewpoint is that the moral agent is not usually able to provide justification for a particular action or set of actions. The `operative principles' on which judgments are based do not however have to be known by the moral agent, and this agent does not usually arrive at a moral decision by conscious reasoning from specific principles. Further, moral dilemmas or conflicts are resolved by `considered judgment', which is done on very short time scales and is essentially automatic. Lastly, the author discusses the now famous Rawlsian thought experiment of `original position' which was designed (apparently) to find the unconscious principles of justice that are contained in the moral faculty of an agent. The principles of justice must however be discovered behind a `veil of ignorance' so as to eliminate the bias of social status, religious beliefs, etc.
But Rawls falters here, since the veil of ignorance is an idealistic ephemeral construct, and while being favorable to philosophers who enjoy these types of abstractions, is not a practical strategy for discovering ethical truths. Bias is absolutely necessary for the discovery of not only ethical truth but all truth, for it enables one to frame an issue clearly so that it is accessible to experiment and study. A biased hypothesis is one that is more easily refuted if it is indeed wrong. A hypothesis that is floppy or unconstrained is much more difficult to find counterexamples to, and has much less predictive power. And the veil of ignorance seems to fall into a Marxian trap here since it is implicitly assuming that one's social status or membership in a class structure determines one's reasoning patterns on a particular issue. Rawls then invites "reasonable men" to free themselves from their social status in order to think more clearly about ethical issues. What Rawls is asking may be possible but it would be inefficient. What is really needed is a group of individuals of all backgrounds suggesting ideas as quickly as possible and then finding their flaws collectively. The search tree for principles of justice can then be more efficiently pruned. The author does in a later section of the book allude to the need and inevitability of errors in forming a worldview or theory. Errors that keep repeating in a theory, the author argues, are an indication that the theory is too rigid and immune to counterexamples. This requires a break with the past and attempting a new theory that goes against expectations. A successful theory of moral intelligence, either similar to the author's or not, will require an ability of theory to confront new situations and propose alternative courses of action.
The author is aware of the problems in Rawlsian moral philosophy, and even more aware of the extreme difficulties is testing their applicability and practicality in the real world. To test Rawlsian principles and their insistence on long-term "reflective equilibrium' one needs large blocks of time and a method for monitoring whether a collection of experimental subjects indeed followed these principles in the period under question. Did these subjects actually follow the principles or did they alter them as they confronted new situations in life?
These problems with Rawlsian philosophy do not completely undermine the author's case for an intrinsic moral grammar, but his use of thought experiments does to some extent. In the chapter entitled "Grammars of Violence" for example he discusses some favorite "moral dilemmas" of philosophers such as the "trolley problem". These are used to frame ethical issues and study responses to hypothetical scenarios, such as when it is permissible to kill. However there is not one historical example of any of these scenarios on the books, and as such they have a artificial air about them. They are good for philosophical diatribe but nothing more really, and completely unnecessary for building a scientific foundation for ethics. The author seems to be aware of this to some extent, since in that same chapter he reminds the reader that scientific evidence plays no role in the musings of moral philosophers. And he asks philosophers to consider the fact that many people may arrive at different answers to ethical dilemmas then they do, and that this variation may be more than just faulty thinking on the part of these people. Science can investigate this variation more meaningfully by taking philosophical insight "to the streets." And in this same chapter the author's analysis of `macho cultures' is fascinating and definitely worthy of attention and reflection.
There are many more thought-provoking discussions in the book, which are outside the ill-defined boundaries of philosophy and touch on experimental efforts. One of these concerns the inability of three-year old children to access the knowledge and beliefs of other people. The author believes that this fact is crucial to an understanding of the origins of moral thinking, in that the child will need to be able to identify her own shortcomings, at least when judged relative to the affect they have on other people. And it is clear when reading the chapter "The Moral Organ" that the author believes that a successful theory of morals and ethics must be tied to what is known about the brain, i.e. the research and results in the field of neuroscience must be consulted at every step. It is in this chapter that skepticism regarding the moral dilemma/thought experiments discussed earlier will be somewhat alleviated, as the author discusses some neuroimaging studies that indicate a relationship between brain activation and these moral dilemmas. The author though is intellectually honest enough to state that this research does not indicate the existence of a neural system for selectively processing moral content.
Morality that is based on religion or that is rule-based is of course rejected by the author, due mostly to its impotence in resolving important moral issues. No set of canons or legal principles can cover every contingency, and the moral agent must be able to adapt to novel situations and still maintain a moral perspective. The religions of the world fail at this miserably, and therefore their role in a scientific vision of morality will be marginal or even vacuous. The author though realizes that much work remains in deriving a science of morality, and he alludes to the growing influence of science into ethical inquiry. The role of religion, philosophy and sociology in moral considerations will therefore be eclipsed by what is being done in the scientific laboratory, and maybe at the end of the twenty-first century the divorce between science and religion will be complete, with no reconciliation possible.
To understand why people call things right and wrong you need to start with the biology of learning, expectation, and cognition. Given that we are just barely now scratching the surface of these topics Hauser's attempt was bound to fail. His own morals pervade the book and act as logical starting points for his arguments, but rarely does he act as a scientist and dismiss his own morality to seek out the real question which is, "How does the brain create a sense of right and wrong, and is there any definitive proof that there is a universal biological morality?"
Neuroscience tells us that there are very few things we are hardwired to do that we cannot unlearn or adapt to deal with our environments. Hauser spectacularly fails to convince that any moral code is anything other than a learned societal norm.
Top reviews from other countries
2. Warnung: Dieses Buch ist schwer objektiv zu lesen. Als Agnostiker oder Atheist war ich für jeden Satz dieses Buches dankbar. Weil alle meine Menung von der menschlichen Verwandtschaft mit allem Lebenden so wunderbar klar bestätigten - und die Überlegenheit unseres klugen Gehirns über den Einfluss der Gene. Im Positiven wie Bösen. Wer an Gott oder eine "höhere Macht" im Hintergrund des Lebens glaubt, fällt von einer Hölle in die nächste, weil Hauser so überzeugend Beweis für Beweis darbietet, dass die menschliche Moral keine Götter braucht - weil sie durch die Evolution genetisch festgelegt ist.
3. Ich bewundere Marc D. Hauser für seinen Optimismus. Er ist tatsächlich davon überzeugt, dass er Gläubige durch wissenschaftliche Belege dazu bringen könnte, die Evolution als die "Mutter" der Moral zu akzeptieren. Oder zumindest als Schöpferin der wichtigsten Moralüberzeugungen, die alle Menschen weltweit teilen:
* Dass man anderen nicht antun soll, was man selbst nicht erleiden will, sagte der Chinese Konfuzius, der Inder Buddha, der Jude Moses schon vor rund 2500 Jahren. Der Araber Mohammed verkündete 1000 Jahren später das Gleiche. Kluge Philosophen a la Sokrates, Hume und Kant schlossen sich ihnen nach langem Nachdenken an.
* Weltweit glauben alle Menschen zumindest an die zwei Gebote "Du sollst nicht töten" und "Du sollst nicht stehlen". Der Rest ist kulturell bestimmt.
* Globale Befragungen ergaben, dass alle auf moralische Fangfragen instinktiv (also genetisch festgelegt) ähnlich antworten. Ohne es logisch begründen zu können.
Gläubigen kann dies nicht einleuchten. Sie argumentieren meist, dass Moral ohne göttliche Überwachung unmöglich sei. Gleichgültig ob die Gebote durch Altes oder Neues Testament offenbar wurden, durch den Koran oder die Lehre von Karma und Wiedergeburt. Macht nichts:
Marc D. Hauser will Gläubige nicht provozieren. Solange sie die inwischen unzählichen Beweise akzeptieren, dass "Evolution" keine wissenschaftliche Theorie mehr ist sondern anerkannte Tatsache, können sie seinetwegen auch an einen göttlichen Verursacher des Urknalls glauben, der unser Universum in Bewegung setzte. Wer diese Grundlage der Hauser'schen Beweisführung akzeptiert, lernt aus "Moral Minds" ungeheuer viel Interessantes. Über sich und seine Mitmenschen jenseits aller Grenzen von Poltik, Kultur, Religion oder Hautfarbe.
I am certainly not about to suggest that Hauser is wrong in his thesis, in fact, he is probably right. Except, the majority of this book literally strikes me as irrelevant and mostly unwisely exorbitant. Hausers approach in prose is very informal, poorly organized, and makes constant reference to accomplished theories, such as Noam Chomskys "universal grammar," which was irritating, because I am already fully informed of Chomsky's work. This book should have been edited and provided with more concise material to prove its task, to avoid its substantial pitfalls.
Moral Minds is an attention deficit based, fallacy of an appeal to authority, which provides a redeeming message, if the reader were to force themselves to pay attention for the 16+ hours it takes to read the book. I do not suggest that Hauser is wrong, though I do suggest that I would not spend the 16 hours I invested if I had known the composition of this content to begin with.
Here, I'll save you money and time, by describing in a nutshell the entire contents of this book. There is a moral organ equipped inside each human, based on evolutionary design from our original state as hunter gatherers. This moral organ bears its prescriptive principles on situations that confront humans, in guidance of day to day actions and activities involving moral dilemmas. Emotional and logical aspects of reasoning are a part of this moral organ, but the moral faculty itself is submerged and not available to direct introspection. Though most logic and emotions usually are by being generated in the open and can be consciously scrutinized, our moral faculty is opaque and cannot be easily realized or reflected upon. Our moral faculty consists of a submerged set of principles which we acquired through evolution, and will permanently remain with human kind. Each moral situation faced by an individual, generates an automatic judgement -one that is quite rapid- which designates something as morally permissible/impermissible (without being explicitly instructed to do so). Humans moral organ is unique to their species, and it interfaces with other senses such as memory, beliefs, etc. This moral organ is configured to absorb the cultures and familial upbringing of individuals, which show a wide array of difference across geographical proximity, yet stays remarkably similar in its mechanics throughout. No moral system is directly identical, due to the adaptation of specific inputs, similar to Chomsky's theory of language. Yet, the infrastructure allowing for moral judgements is innate and a duplication across all humans, that is, it is identical based off the human species genetic coding, and customized to circumstance reflecting minor idiosyncrasies held between peoples in their cultures.