Customer Reviews

The Moral Sense: Library Edition

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Generally speaking, I have little use for books on morality. Anyone who needs to be given reasons in a book not to rape, rob or steal is someone not to be trusted. Books on morality, at best, are merely rationalizations of what all decent people believe anyway, and I fail to understand what is the point of that. But James Q. Wilson's "The Moral Sense" is a different kind of book on morality. Instead of trying to prove that murder is wrong or genocide evil, Wilson attempts to explain the origin of widespread beliefs concerning moral issues. His thesis is quite simple: morality, he argues, is based on human nature. In pursuing this goal, he makes no effort to state or justify moral rules, but seeks only to clarify what ordinary people mean when they speak about moral feelings and to explain the source of those feelings. Wilson regards this book as a continuation of the work begun by 18th century British philosophers, most notably David Hume and Adam Smith. He adds to this tradition a wealth of evidence from the biological and social sciences. The empirical examples Wilson has collected to illustrate his arguments are fascinating. "The Moral Sense" is not only the best book on morality written in the last fifty years, it also one of the best primers on the latest scientific evidence relating to human nature. For this alone, the book deserves high marks. It refutes the widely held notion that human nature is culturally malleable and that, with the right education and upbringing, the nature of man can be radically changed. Anyone who aspires to be educated and to understand what science has discovered about human beings needs to read this book. They will learn more about man and society from this book then all the text books they ever read in university courses in the social sciences.

I normally wouldn't give a book that is this slow such a high rating. Some of the chapters are longer than they need to be. Despite that, Wilson's argument is so interesting that it is worth struggling through some rather difficult writing to try to understand it.

Wilson is making a very conservative argument that argues that everyone is born with an innate moral sense, but that the family is key to socializing children to express that basic human nature. He uses extensive reference materials to back up his argument. In the end, I wasn't convinced that his thesis was correct, but he made me consider possibilities and arguments that I had not contemplated in the past. Some of his arguments about women were clearly sexist, and he didn't back it up in a way that made it seem like anything more than anti-feminist rhetoric. Overall, however, some of what he said did make sense. The book made me think, which a decent philosophical essay ought to do.

If you are willing to read a book you might not agree with, and you are interested in philosophy/morality, this book is worth the effort.

This is an important book. If one has only one book to read on morality and ethics, I cannot recommend a better book than Wilson's "The Moral Sense." It's the first and, to my knowledge, the only, book that is a thoroughly modern, naturalistic, and intuitionist theory of ethics to date. The book begins with the challenge facing modern readers: Do we accept the total relativism of Rorty and other pragmatic academics who argue there is no moral sense whatsoever, or do we accept the polar opposite that only revealed religion or Kant's and Benthan's absolutist maxims give us a moral sense?

According to Wilson, both extremes are to be avoided by conciliating the theory of moral sentiments advanced by David Hume, Francis Hutcheson, and especially Adam Smith in the 18th century with the theory of evolution advanced by Charles Darwin a century later. Wilson arrives at a thoroughly modern conception of human nature and what it means to have a natural moral sense without prescriptive religion or deontological maxims to guide us. It is a wonderfully entertaining and highly thought provoking book to read on what can sometimes be a dull subject.

Obviously, modern moral developments have not all been positive. As Wilson observes, we've come to our senses about equality, fairness, and empathy towards others, but we may have left behind self-control and duty to others. I think he's absolutely on target. Unless and until we recognize that morality is not divinely-instituted, but rather empirically established by who we are by nature, and yes a Darwinian nature, then our moral sense will be always miss its target. All four: (1) Fairness, (2) empathy, (3) self-control, and (4) duty must operate concurrently for our morality to be balanced. Wilson's diagnosis of modernity is that they are imbalanced: We've largely omitted self-control and duty from our moral sense and become a tad bit self-absorbed (although recent developments may suggest otherwise).

The first-third of the book rehearses the theory of moral sentiments and the applicable theory from evolution to establish the four "impulses" or "intuitions" of morality: Fairness, empathy, self-control, and duty. Notice these are universal, naturally-endowed impulses, not religious or philosophical maxims or prescriptions. We "intuit" these concepts, and from their application with our experience of family, friends, and society, we develop character. This interaction thusly develops a "conscience" to guide us. This is the substance of the second-third of the book. The last-third of the book explains how conscience (i.e., habituated character) forms affiliations, rights, and responsibilities. Here the author's adds his insights and applies them to a few case examples.

The book is not flawless, but it is the most comprehensive, modern, and naturalistic book on ethics to appear in a single volume. That's a mighty claim, but I think it holds despite my criticism. I have two: (a) Wilson tends to be disorganized to the point of distraction; key concepts almost become ancillary. It's a problem of organization that could have been avoided by a matter of style. (b) The second criticism is a kind of sloppiness occurs in the final section: Besides trying to "humanize" his theory excessively, many of his personal reflections are too time-bound to be perennially relevant. These flaws would not be so egregious if the third section kept to a simple summary of key concepts; but instead of a simple summary Wilson addles between a summary and ruminations. Because the third section is perhaps the most expansive, these criticisms are all the more glaring.

For these reasons, I think the reader would be well-served to precede this book with Matt Ridley's "The Origins of Virtue," even though they cover some of the same territory. Ridley is a much more disciplined and focused author, whereas Wilson has a more expansive and developed sense of a intuitionist morality. If one can't read both - and if the reader is careful to focus on the key concepts rather than the supporting evidence and ancillary reflections - then this book is the one to get. Extreme relativism and extreme religiosity are no longer necessarily appropriate for an intuitional moral disposition. Moral balance, based on the four intuitions, are sufficient and necessary for a virtuous life.

Even criminals believe in morality, at least as they grow older. . . . When asked, at aged thirty-two, weather they would be very angry if their son or daughter committed a criminal offence, over three-fourths of those men who had themselves been convicted of a crime (and often several crimes) answered yes. Even the most hardened criminalsthose with at least eight convictionsagreed. They may not be very good fathers, but they dont want their sons or daughters to be very bad children. (11)

This is quite an interesting book. It focuses on the moral sense, an idea whose heyday was coeval with the Scottish Enlightenment and the American Revolution. The central thesis of the book is that there is we have a moral sense, a sense that certain things are right and that certain things are wrong. Wilson observes that his book differs from other research in that many conducting this search have looked in the wrong places for the wrong things because they have sought for universal rules rather than universal dispositions. (225) This is not so much a quest for absolute laws, as C. S. Lewis did in Abolition of Man, and in Mere Christianity, but it is a rather psychological-heavy inductive study ob what people actually do and say.

The book is divided in to three sections. After the overview chapter, Wilson covers different aspects of our Sentiments, focusing on Sympathy, Fairness, Self-Control, and Duty. These four areas provide a grind in which our feelings of morality are properly expressed. I found the chapter on Sympathy quite interesting, since Sympathy is the lynchpin of Adam Smiths landmark Theory of Moral Sentiments. We in essence see ourselves projection into the life and situation of other suffering persons. Moreover, we head the voice of the man within the breast who urges us on to good actions, which Lincoln called the better angels of our nature.

The second half of the book is a study of the sources of these feeling of rightness and wrongness. The four chapters are The Social Animal, families, Gender, and the Universal Aspiration. He makes the case for much of our sense of morality is rooted in evolutionary biology. Darwin will always select in favor of the people who are pro family, since that is how we will survive fitly. Moreover, we have this herd instinct which binds us together into cities, poli, and bodies politic. In fact, the greatest realization that came to me was that we nee morals precisely because there are other people with whom we have to deal with, work with, and to ultimately love!

The last part is one chapter long, and it focuses on the moral sense and character. Wilson makers the point that we cannot prove in a positivistic sense that there are moral standards or laws out there any better than we can prove Platonic forms. However, people do act as if there are moral standards, and the idea of morality itself is evidence.

Mr. Wilson has a soft, quite and gentle voice and tone that could double for a relaxation tape. I have heard him in person, and must say that it like the announcers at a golf match or an announcer on National Public Radio. This works to his advantage, since many of his ideas are quite controversial. This book is perfect for discussion, and ponderous thought. Now all we need is more research along these line to sharpen our picture of the moral sense.

I mentioned that the book is rather psychosocial heavy. Let me amend that by saying that there is a substantial amount of psychological data, but no psychobabble. Moreover, Mr. Wilson liberally quotes from Aristotles Nichomachian Ethics and his Politics, so we have a healthy mix of both the old and the new in this book. It is quite refreshing to see someone bridge the ages, and bridge the gap between philosophy and practice, and theory and data.

The main question that vexes me is that you could not tell the difference between a people who does not have a moral sense and one who ignores his or her moral sense. The outward behavior would be the same. The only clue that we have is the lie detector, which measures biological reactions to lies. We may tell lies, but our body knows that we are lying. (106-107)

Wilson provides a facinating overview of our inate moral standards throughout history with the focus being on the differences and similiarities of current cultures. Equally facinating is his analysis of the differences between men and women. He pulls from famous thinkers, medicine, socialogical and psychological studies creating a very comprehensive yet readable essay. This book will leave you inspired and thoughtful for many years.

Two major pieces of conventional - wisdom are undermined in the present work. The first is that we are all merely selfish creatures who act only out of considerations of our own self- interest. The second is that there is no objective morality and that no action can be taken to have a real moral value- but rather that all is simply ' relative'.
James Q. Wilson presents in this work a general theory which explains and justifies our 'moral sense'. He does this in part through his reading of eighteenth - century Enlightenment moralists, Adam Smith, Frances Hutcheson, David Hume but also through his reading of Darwinian evolution.
Primarily however he examines in ordinary clear language cases and examples from our everyday life and experience , and through them helps establish that the 'moral sense' is present in most of us.
He opens his work with a chapter on the Moral Sense, those dispositions which enable us to intuit what is right and wrong. He then considers four sentiments central to the Moral Sense- Sympathy, Fairness, Self- Control and Duty. In writing for instance of Sympathy he shows how this ability to feel for and understand others is a much approved and commendable quality. And how there are clear cases of Sympathy which cannot simply be classified as manipulations for self- interest. He considers too how Sympathy may inform heroic action, as in the most dramatic case of a soldier giving his life for his fellows.
Wilson discourses in his third section the Sources of the Moral Sense. His chapters here are 'Social Animals' ' Families' 'Gender' 'The Universal Aspiration'. He concentrates on how the close- ties within the family are one of the strong sources of Morality , and how those ties are extended to reach out to wider and wider parts of humanity.
His final chapter is on 'The Moral Sense and Human Character'.
Wilson throughout supplies a very large number of examples and cases which he reads in a moderate, intelligent interpretative tone.
There is a quiet convincingness in the whole feel of the work.
It is as if 'common sense' were restoring to us a sense of ourselves our possible goodness and dignity which modern Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology may have deprived of us.
A key book for understanding ourselves and how we might be better human beings in a better world.

Wilson focuses on the innate senses of sympathy, fairness, self-control, and duty that rise beyond what we are simply taught. Indeed, it appears that he has zeroed in on the morality most people act upon, instead of the moral codes that we think we follow. Often these senses live side-by-side with the other hostile senses we also posess. Covers a wide range of issues, but I read it too long ago to recall any more. The other chapters focus on the sources of these sentiments: social animal, families, gender, and universal aspiration.

This 1993 book by James Q. Wilson (author of Bureaucracy) is another tour de force distilling big ideas into a form that easIER to understand. While reading the book, I was reminded of related work by Gregory Clark, Leda Cosmedes & John Tooby, Avner Greif, Douglass North and many others -- most of them probably (in)directly indebted to Wilson for his far-reaching survey of how we think of morality, how that thinking may have arose, and what implications may follow from it. (Wilson makes heavy use of Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), so the debt continues to circulate.)

Wilson's main point (as I understand) is that our moral sense is inherited -- something that we are born with, a result of hundreds of generations of natural selection. Wilson points out that the moral sense is not a set of universal rules, but instincts that push us in a direction that we sometimes ignore. And that's Wilson's other point, that we combine these impulses with social rules when deciding when to act and what action to take.

(Wilson heaps a few more shovels of scorn on the notion that Freud and Marx were more than just ideologues. The Nihilists and Existentialists are also put in their place for constructing a castle in the sand. Wilson rightly points out that their assumption that human emotion is a terra nullis for implementing new ideas is rubbish. He would have loved to see that Simone Beauvoir was terribly jealous of the other women Sartre slept with, in contrast with her public "c'est cool avec moi" attitude.)

Wilson begins with an idea that would warm the conservative heart: We have put too much emphasis into moral relativism and discarded too much tradition in the name of self-indulgence, tolerance or -- lest the liberals whinge -- beating a child as a form of discipline. (And this is where I love Wilson's style: he doesn't stick with a well-trod path. He questions everything from first principles, comparing theories and ideas to common sense and observed reality.)

The book is divided into three parts. In Sentiments, Wilson talks about moral feelings that we have. In Sources, he describes how these feelings may have evolved, biologically and socially. In Character, he sums up how we may use moral senses in our contemporary lives.

The four Sentiments are sympathy, fairness, self control and duty. I was interested to see that each of these have been extensively tested by psychologists and economists. Respective examples are Milgrom's 1961 shocker experiment (where people were willing to injure others who failed the test when instructed by an authority figure); the Ultimatum game (where one person proposes how to split $20, and the other person can accept the split or reject it -- leaving both with nothing); the lack of self-control in drug addiction (and social norms that allow one's manners to decay to the point where self-indulgence displaces social obligations); and public goods games (where people interact when deciding how much to contribute to a public account that benefits everyone instead of keeping that contribution, each for themselves; total contribution to the public account makes everyone better off; total abstention leaves them where they started.)

During these chapters, I liked these useful remarks:

* Children in rural societies are more altruistic and cooperative than their peers in urban places because they live in smaller communities and carry more adult responsibilities.

* The "invisible handshake" means that prices should not rise until costs do (the topic of many anti-gouging laws). Wilson points out that prices need not fall with costs, since people also equate the resulting higher profits as a reward for possible good management. (Wilson says nothing about the problem of running out of a good, if demand exceeds supply.)

* People prefer fairness in equity, reciprocation and judgment, but equity is not the same as equality. Equity means that you get paid in proportion to your effort or contribution; equality means that you get paid the same as everyone else. (I have been sloppy with "equity" on the blog and will be more careful.) He also suggests that Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" is an unrealistic tool for designing social outcomes (i.e., if we were designing a system for wealth distribution and did not know who would get more wealth when the Veil was pulled away, then we'd probably vote that everyone gets the same wealth). I agree with that statement about outcomes, but I still like a Rawlsian view on inputs, i.e., the idea that everyone would face the same incentives and rules BEFORE they went out to earn what they could. In this sense, I agree with equity, not equality. All men are created equal doesn't mean they all end up that way...

* Manners display to strangers that you have self-control. That's useful if you don't want them to misinterpret your actions as hostile. Wilson also gives a great example, of how women did not cover themselves in small tribes (because everyone knew who was available or not), but them covered themselves in larger groups (to avoid rape). Women are less covered NOW because our social norms have changed, to give women greater control over who gets to mate with them, regardless of how they are dressed.

* Activists need to distinguish a "sense of duty (which leads people to act on principles) from the love of power (which leads them to manipulate principles)" [p 109].

In Sources, Wilson discusses The Social Animal, Families, Gender, and The Universal Aspiration.

* The Social Animal begins with the observation that anthropologists and economists are BOTH right. Culture varies from place to place, yet people do pursue their self interests -- within the constraints of culture. Wilson then gets into the nature versus nurture debate, coming out in favor of both.

* Families goes into child-rearing. Kids do best when their parents are loving, yet firm with rules and discipline. Cold, random-justice parents leave their kids alienated and confused between right and wrong. There's much more about the rise of the nuclear family.

* Gender points out how weak men are, and how women temper that weakness by choosing who to mate with. From this, men came up with a useful response "the code of the gentleman was the most successful extralegal mechanism ever invented for adopting male behavior to the requirements of modern life" [p 173]. He then contrasted the Hobbesian world of gold rush California (many single men, many murders) with gold rush Appalachia (many Cornish families, much stability).

* The Universal Aspiration concerns the status of people as equals, entitled to fair treatment. Wilson surveys enlightenment thought, the role of the Catholic Church and debates over slavery here.

In his final chapter, Wilson says that there are certain universal moral truths (one is do not murder without cause; another is that mothers love their children. I enjoyed this second example, as it echoed my own observation -- after five years of travel in 62 countries -- that "people love their kids"). He goes on to say that there is no single universal moral truth. We merely mix and match biological instincts and social norms into a mish-mash of behavior that is, more or less, directed at "doing the right thing." (Wilson reflects on psychopaths early on. Besides saying that they probably do deserve punishment, he also observes how amazing it is that we -- humans -- all DO manage to get along so well. I remind myself of this, each time I get on a strange bus in a strange place with strangers.) He completes his thought with the (un)helpful observation that morality is too intuitive. We can't teach morality through words and rules in the same way as we can't teach poetry with lessons on meter and rhymes.

Bottom Line: This is an excellent book on a complex and important topic. This book is MUCH better than any textbook on philosophy, culture or religion, but it's still a deep read that requires a lot of concentration. I give it FOUR stars, if only because Wilson's firehose of ideas and information can be overwhelming. Plan accordingly.

The subject matter is extremely interesting to me as living in this time, and understanding something of human history, it is hard not to consider human beings as lower than cockroaches on a moral scale. The breadth of the research Wilson refers to is useful to me. This is one of the few books where I have read and enjoyed the footnotes. Wilson also has a sense of humor and irony, and is, in my opinion, a skilled writer. Recommend highly.The MORAL SENSE

The questions I had when checking this book out from the library were as follows: 'How much is my personal moral sense skewed into good or evil by my experiences and how I interpret them?' and 'What can heal a damaged moral sense (unhappy childhood) or destroy a strong moral sense?' and 'What is the relationship between intelligence and moral sense?'

My questions were not answered by this volume.

A distinction between tolerance (you put up with something because you have to) and acceptance (you have no objections to a practice) is not made. On page seven moral relativism is equated with refusing to condemn strange customs in a foreign society. Wilson makes no distinction between tolerating a practice that you have no influence or control over vs. accepting it. I tolerate clubs catering to smokers (I hate smoking); it doesn't mean I am a smoking advocate, as Mr. Wilson implies. I recognize other people have a right to smoke, just not around me.

No mention of Ayn Rand's objectivism; on p234 it is called 'vainglorious' without being named. As the modern answer to relativism, it says, things do have values, and some (like my life) are more valuable than others (like a corrupt regime's whims). Objectivism also restates and simplifies Wilson's entire argument with foundational premises and structured conclusions. Wilson uses Christian family values, post modern relativism, emotional psychology, variants on Darwinism, and social/cultural norms as his reasoning tools. The empirical evidence is documented psychological studies, widely open to interpretation, and presented without [supporting] context. (Floating abstractions.)

Part one entitled "Sentiments" involved the wonders of altruism. Mob justice, social networks, and self interest get nods. Altruism is expanded around throughout the entire book in various guises (fairness, duty, self-control, behaviorism), rather than a simple 'charity is a personal choice.' Instead of asking 'why do we choose this?' Wilson documents (and interprets) behavior that shows moral choices being made in specific (controlled) instances. Selfishness is equated with evil.

Part two, "Sources" explores from where the moral sense is instilled, (Social groups, families, bonding), but no *new* analysis is made on methodology. Baumrind's parenting studies (pp150-1) are cited. A pointless chapter on gender is followed by historical Western philosophy lessons (not relevant as fundamental human nature doesn't change between societies or centuries).

Part three, 'Character,' finally asks about moral universals (premises). 'We are human' is the only one. More philosophy reaffirming the author's Western Christian 'modern' world view -- "Believing individuals are everything, rights are trumps, and morality is relative (to time and place), such thinkers design laws... that leave nothing between the state and individual save choices, contracts and entitlements. Fourth grade children being taught condom use is only one of the more perverse of the results(p250)." Book ends with an extended metaphor on light.

Apparently morality can't be objective and intelligent, it can only be relative in modern society. Otherwise, it's vainglorious and not fitting for individuals. What tripe!