american | Tribal warfare, broadly construed, has afflicted human existence
since the beginning of recorded time. Figuring out how to resolve
conflict among conflicting groups — be they actual warring tribesmen,
geopolitical rivals, partisan adversaries, or cultural warriors — can
rightly be described as the key challenge facing social scientists, both
in theory and in practice.
In his engaging, persuasive book Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them,
Joshua Greene, a cognitive psychology professor and the director of
Harvard’s Moral Cognition Laboratory, grapples with some of the
thorniest socio-moral questions ever to have bedeviled political
philosophers: When and why do we choose between “me” and “us”? When and
why do we choose between “us” and “them”? How can we craft a common
“meta-morality” that people of all different ideologies, religions,
races, and cultures can share?
To call Greene’s project ambitious would be a massive understatement.
“This book,” Greene writes, “is an attempt to understand morality from
the ground up … It’s about understanding the deep structure of moral
problems [and] … about taking this new understanding of morality and
turning it into a universal moral philosophy that members of all human
tribes can share.”
His framework for this analysis is a camera with automatic and manual
modes, representing the reflexive and reflective capacities of the
brain, our twin — and conflicting — abilities to act instinctually and
think contemplatively in response to challenges we face. Greene
skillfully maps these complimentary modes to particular portions of the
brain that alternately process involuntary movements and purposeful
thoughts.
Greene begins by exploring how “our moral brains evolved for
cooperation within groups,” but not for cooperation between groups. He
ably explains the Prisoner’s Dilemma and
how a variety of different forces — direct and indirect reciprocity,
concern for others, concern for one’s reputation, and commitments —
enable two collaborators to find the “magic corner, where the aggregate
outcome is optimal.
But these forces at times have nefarious consequences, as “some
mathematical models indicate that altruism within groups could not have
evolved without hostility between groups.” In his model, the human
mind’s “automatic mode” applies to in-group interactions, where we
instinctively protect and promote those within our tribe, including
those outside of our nuclear families.
In order to overcome these inter-tribal differences, Greene
maintains, we must turn to “manual mode” and carefully, actively,
intellectually weigh the costs and benefits of any key decisions.
0 comments:
Post a Comment