I think the central argument in this article is that we are
lacking compassion. Or that we do not see the outcomes to our actions. In the
article, Joshua Greene mentions his experiment the Trolley Problem. He says how
we would dutifully kill a man by pulling a lever but refuse on the principle to
give him a nudge that leads to the same thing. He also mentions how we differ
with moral perspectives. Greene calls it the “Tragedy of commonsense morality”,
he says how people aren’t selfish per say but they have a different perspective
of what a moral society should be. Maybe that is why we are capable of one
thing rather than another when they have the same outcome. Greene also talks
about empathy, this might also be a factor in how we respond or react to
something. It might also depend on diversity and how some might see a person’s
value and even our morals. In the article they discuss gay rights to global
morals and their value. This is not just based on thing but multiple and it
affects numerous things all based on how we act, think, speak, and even act.
I don't think the central argument revolves around lacking compassion in fact the central argument points to lack of comprehension. The text refers to the human race as a whole since the stone age saying that we are use to getting along with each other in small hunter gather groups. However in modern times groups have been so squished together that biases of all types have been formed and part of this problem is also due to the fact that evolution did not fix our brains to adapt to this sort of change from small cooperative hunter gather groups to extremely big groups. The bigger picture would be that we just simply do not understand. We have a very particular sense of justice and the idea of who should be on the rewarding side for good deeds and who should be on the bad side waiting for punishment for a bad deed. As individuals we have a sense of entitlement that blinds us leading to think that our actions will always be justified no matter what the opposing sides argument might be.
ReplyDeleteI think that we are put into conflicts we don’t evaluate the situation and try to solve the situation to gain a compromise but instead put our own beliefs and past history with making that conclusion. As Joshua Greene has provided in his book, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them, he concluded that we make decisions up our morally instead of leaving out our beliefs. He calls it Darwinian, which is “the impulses and inclinations that shape moral discourse are, by and large, legacies of natural selection, rooted in our genes.” With going back in time to being separated by tribes in the Stone Age, we were separated at which we would hardly interact with a different tribe although still shared the same language, culture, and kin. If we based our designs now on the conflicts we are having with our countries, with no morals involved, then we would come together on a proposal for the better of both countries.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alicia, we as human being are lacking compassion in numerous ways. A professor from Harvard, Joshua Greene who graduated from Princeton with a philosophy degree. He describes the "Trolley Problem" as an example. Alicia brought up a good example from the article. "Tragedy of commonsense morality" as much as people in society wants to refer themselves as 'good citizens' they don't prove any of that. Lastly, I agree on how we act, think, and speak will base our personality but more importantly it will base the moral of our society.
ReplyDeleteI think there are many main points in the article. The author talks about many of Greene's ideas that come from his books and I agree with Alicia in some ways about the lack of compassion, but at the same time he does talk about how people value different things There's a section where Greene says, "Notwithstanding its central argument, it includes lots of evidence that often the source of human conflict isn’t different moral systems but rather a kind of naturally unbalanced perspective." The human race as a whole is in no way similar because of how everyone sees things. We all don't look at things the same way and we're all so diverse, we take things in differently. There's also a section where it talks about how we're all bias and overestimate each other. I think maybe this means that we lack trust in each other and that's why we don't really get along as well as we should.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to have to disagree with you over the thesis of this article about Joshua Greene's theory, because the problem doesn't lie with compassion but everyone's cultural view of morality in today's society. We live in a world where we are too large of a cluster mixed in with several backgrounds making up who we are and how we will see the world. In the article it uses a quote from Greene's novel; "Many Muslims believe that no one—Muslim or otherwise—should be allowed to produce visual images of the Prophet Muhammad. Some Jews believe that Jews are God’s “chosen people” and that the Jews have a divine right to the land of Israel. Many American Christians believe that the Ten Commandments should be displayed in public buildings and that all Americans should pledge allegiance to “one nation under God.” The world was never meant to be seen through one set of eyes so an individual has to be able to change their perspective without losing their own core values. Greene's thesis is surrounded by this idea that if we don't take away the diversity that divides us as a people then it will remain impossible to draw moral laws or establish world peace.
ReplyDeleteAlicia, I understanding where you are coming from. Greene states that we are designed to get along with one another and especially in smaller groups. I believe by this, Greene means that smaller groups can see each other’s morality and they are able to come with an agreement because of the smaller number of people. Groups of people should be able to talk about their emotions and feelings with one another but are unable to. He also states that a common problem in the world is overestimating the role played by divergent values and the tendency to pull away from an opposite organization or group. A baseball team will not like their rivals and they will believe they are better than that particular team. People tend to stick to their tribe and will not move out due to feeling uncomfortable.
DeleteBesides talking about a lack of compassion between humans, and many other related topics; the article also focus on how we separate into groups for a certain purpose, but at the end, all we are looking for is our own benefit. They emphasized it with the example of the hunters, they worked together to get the prey, but when they had it, they fought about who deserved the most, after being cooperative to each other, they competed to see who deserved a larger percent of the animal. The article mentions that this behavior relies on the beliefs of each individual, but also on biological biases of morality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aaliyah. People are selfish. I agree up until the point about God, every individual yes has a right to their own opinion, none of it is wrong... You're going to believe what you believe. Yet i am a strong believer that this is one nation under God.I also agree with what Greene has to say on the matter of compassion and so forth. As humans in todays society something is always brought up that it is wrong and there is only one way, while i disagree with this greene has a point in the matter of compassion.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this has anything to do with God, this has to do with what is really right or wrong. I believe it's based on our judgment of what we think would be the right decision, anyone can do something FOR religion but will they really think it's right or wrong to do it? This has to deal with inner conflict. I don't think it has anything to do lack of compassion, it's reason or morale
ReplyDelete