The Moral Instinct

For a couple of my classes this semester, an assignment I have received is to read an article called “The Moral Instinct” written by a psychology professor at Harvard University named Steven Pinker. He is an atheist who is trying to analyze the role and structure of morality in human beings.

The article’s main point is that the “moral impulse” is something innate in each human being. We all have something intrinsic which allows us to distinguish right from wrong. However, because of the cultural and societal norms in which we were born, there are different “spheres” or themes which make one moral act more important than another. The five different spheres include harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity. Pinker writes:

All this brings us to a theory of how the moral sense can be universal and variable at the same time. The five moral spheres are universal, a legacy of evolution. But how they are ranked in importance, and which is brought in to moralize which area of social life — sex, government, commerce, religion, diet and so on — depends on the culture. Many of the flabbergasting practices in faraway places become more intelligible when you recognize that the same moralizing impulse that Western elites channel toward violations of harm and fairness (our moral obsessions) is channeled elsewhere to violations in the other spheres. Think of the Japanese fear of nonconformity (community), the holy ablutions and dietary restrictions of Hindus and Orthodox Jews (purity), the outrage at insulting the Prophet among Muslims (authority). In the West, we believe that in business and government, fairness should trump community and try to root out nepotism and cronyism. In other parts of the world this is incomprehensible — what heartless creep would favor a perfect stranger over his own brother?

The article is not about politics per se. However, it does make a slight mention of it. Pinker states, “It’s not surprising that each side (liberal and conservative) thinks it is driven by lofty ethical values and that the other side is base and unprincipled.” It is just an interesting concept especially when trying to talk to someone who holds a different perspective. I think it is true that some people hold some issues to be more important to them than it might be to someone else. This idea can to some extent be seen in the election today. There are “hot topics” and “cold topics”. Last election, abortion was a big deal. This election poverty is a big deal.

Now, I just want to point out that I do not think that the actual moral act and that the content of morality is relative to culture and society! This article just definitely makes for interesting conversation! I would love to hear what you think!