08w03:1 The Moral Instinct Posted January 13th, 2008 by timothy. 1 Comment Goodreads | 2008 week 03 number 1 (The Moral Instinct) The Moral Instinct | Steven Pinker Link (New York Times Magazine) “Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it’s an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. […] Borlaug, father of the “Green Revolution” that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care. […] The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinions we have on how people ought to behave. Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking. This is the mind-set that makes us deem actions immoral (‘killing is wrong’), rather than merely disagreeable (‘I hate brussels sprouts’), unfashionable (‘bell-bottoms are out’) or imprudent (‘don’t scratch mosquito bites’). The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted.”
E. I. Sanchez says: 14 January 2008 at 10:00 pm “The first hallmark of moralization is that the rules it invokes are felt to be universal. Prohibitions of rape and murder, for example, are felt not to be matters of local custom but to be universally and objectively warranted.” The inquisitors and the nazis didn’t think they were doing anything wrong. Cannibals don’t think eating their own kin is wrong either. Though I agree there are objective moral values, objectives moral values only exist if there is a transcendent law giver. Otherwise, transcendent moral values are simply the opinion of people at that particular time. This is naturalism. The majority says what’s right and wrong. Thus, to say rape or murder are wrong would be simply our opinion. Denish D’Souza blogged about this topic too. http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/01/14/the-un-darwinian-sacrifice-of-maximilian-kolbe/
