And the Gap Between Us and Them - Moral Tribes

Joshua Greene has a very interesting academic background - he is both a research psychologist and a philosopher. He uses his expertise in both areas to explain why ethical issues are fundamentally impossible to resolve if we rely only on our moral intuitions.

Greene's Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them takes the fascinating ideas from Daniel Kahneman's Thinking, Fast and Slow and applies them to moral reasoning about ethical problems. Greene also relies on the ideas presented in Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Greene supplements this work with his own work of brain scans of people making moral judgments based on the famous trolley problem (for more on this famous philosophical problem, see Thomas Cathcart's entertaining book The Trolley Problem, or Would You Throw the Fat Guy Off the Bridge?: A Philosophical Conundrum).

The author makes a compelling case that our moral intuitions, based on fast thinking, developed to address issues of individual interests versus group interests, while slowing thinking deals with issues between groups that do not share the same moral intuitions. He proposes a utilitarian approach to dealing with such problems - an approach that would probably work well if all parties involved would agree to use it. Unfortunately this seems very unlikely in areas of moral conflict - such as issues involving religion.

Greene's book suffers in comparison to the books written by Kahneman and Haidt, both of which I highly recommend. Nevertheless it is a worthwhile amplification of their ideas as applied to moral reasoning.

Superby reasoned, brilliantly imaginative, highly thought provoking, and enormously enagaging throughout -- Moral Tribes is an exceptional contribution to the literature. Greene makes as persuasive a case as possible for rational thinkers to consider advocating a utilitarian approach to divisive moral problems. I hope this is the first of many popular books we can expect from Greene in future.

Greene respectfully points out weaknesses in Haidt's The Righteous Mind - conservatives are not, as Haidt asserts, necessarily respectful of authority; Haidt underestimates the effect of reasoning on values, and Haidt doesn't give useful guidance about "what to do." For example, should liberals reject the science of climate change in order to express tolerance and to make conservatives happy?
Greene also points to Scandinavian countries as natural experiments with decidedly liberal values, countries flourishing for 70 years, involving tens of millions of people, and asks, rhetorically, would they be more successful and their citizens happier if they were to import the religious beliefs and behaviors of the US? Would they benefit from stigmatizing gays, adopting a young earth belief, subjecting science to a litmus test of agreement with religious dictates of the truth?
There is a lot more to this very good book - I just want to point out a weakness of Haidt's book, also very good.

This is just an excellent book. I consider it quite original and somewhat radical. The author Joshua Greene does a remarkable job of arguing his case and the book is thoroughly enjoyable.

Greene makes the observation that our intuitive moral emotions evolved to ensure cooperation within your own tribe and treated everyone else as "them". Obviously this doesn't work very well in the modern global world. So the point of this book is to defend a meta morality to resolve all the modern moral conflicts.

Greene uses modern issues like abortion as examples and this is just part of his excellent text. This book has the the store "Look Inside" feature and I recommend you utilize that to preview the text.

This is a thinking person's book and I highly recommend it. Very well done.

Moral Tribes is a good book, and worth reading, if only for the strenuous attempt the author makes at understanding the arguments (often rationalizations) behind a variety of moral postures. In Chapter 2, the connection between the prisoner's dilemma variations and related emotions that enforce cooperation was very clear and helpful. The Trolley problem and variations are helpful in measuring people's taste for utilitarian thinking, but the narrative had a hole in it by not considering the liability problem. At least in most parts of the USA, pushing a person or a switch that saves 5 (or a million) people at the expense of one person nonetheless lands the 'helpful utilitarian' in trouble with eager local prosecutors, who need only consult the security cameras trained on the relevant spot to nab the perpetrator. Doing nothing is the only defense, because one can always claim inattention, and this is good enough for a bystander. There is a lot of space devoted to this before the discussion finally peters out, as it should, given that this is a toy problem and that a real problem, laden with loads of context both relevant and irrelevant, is going to engage mostly thinking slow. Or a hasty act that is more than likely followed with a trial and lots of regret.

The author makes a good case that utilitarianism is perhaps the only approach that can resolve moral problems across tribal preferences, but a less good case that utilitarianism is really a moral guide rather than a method that can apply to any number of people from 2 to a zillion. Even the goal of universal utilitarians "all people should be maximally happy" is not without problems, particularly because what constitutes a happy situation for a person is path dependent and therefore a function of hundreds of contingencies all of which would need to be considered to actually maximize this function. It isn't good enough to maximize the happiness of the average person (along every happiness dimension), but somehow organize to provide that everyone in whatever normal distribution is being considered has just enough of whatever quantity is needed to maximize THEIR happiness. Hmmm… This sounds rather libertarian, given that only each individual can know what makes them happy.

I'm left wanting to be a utilitarian, but still not exactly sure what to do. Am I supposed to be helping maximize happiness by letting everyone alone and following their tribal values fully (think female circumcision) so no one is made unhappy by my (or some government's) opposition? This would probably maximize everyone's happiness for the present moment, especially given that people do not like to change their thinking or moral judgments. But walling everyone off doesn't deal with the us vs. them conflicts (that presumably have a utilitarian solution), and these fester into genocide eventually, given the historical record. So if we are talking a pan-human happiness maximization, then we should be banning the Abaya, as only a small minority requires this form of dress, much to the annoyance of the rest of humanity. And how to enforce this ideal? Perhaps having a round of ethnic cleansing is called for, given that (in the Danish example) people in this fairly homogeneous country are happier than average? Even though this is admirable, it all seems very hard.

On slavery, fair enough, there is little possibility that a person who has been enslaved against their will will suffer less than the happiness benefit enjoyed by the owner. The discussion in the book would be better, though, if the situation of a person selling themselves into slavery (to avoid debt, or perhaps starvation, or to enjoy the benefits of living in the master's palace) had been included. Note to author: Righteousness is unbecoming anywhere in a book about utilitarianism.

The discussion of "Human Rights" was very clear and perfectly on target. Human Rights talk signals that argumentation has ended and everyone in the tribe has agreed, and therefore Human Rights talk can't be usefully be used internally in a argument. I hope this understanding travels far and wide and we stop hearing human rights based moralizing, which is tedious and unhelpful for all the reasons spelled out in this section of the book. Good job, good contribution, and long overdue.

The discussion of the abortion debate was really very striking. Joshua Greene completely destroyed the pro-choice argument, showing it to be hollow. He tries to perform the same trick on the pro-life side, but with a good deal less success, primarily because he hinges his argument on a soul being assigned to a body at conception. As he clearly points out, there is essentially no evidence for this particular assignment. This discussion would have been better had he also pointed out that it is often the case that a clear thinking person (a scientist) will form beliefs that are consistent (they hope) with a particular understanding of the world, then seek to obtain evidence supporting the belief. There are many examples of this, such as the atomic theory of matter, special and general relativity, etc., etc. The belief preceded the confirming evidence. In the case of 'ensouling' an embryo, obtaining relevant data is in principle difficult because we lack an instrument that reliably detects souls, just as Einstein lacked instruments to measure the curvature of space. An 'ensouling' measurement is much more difficult, because if a soul is anything other than a wishful thought, it is made of something very probably like dark matter/energy, i.e. it can be inferred by indirect evidence but interacts with ordinary only very weakly and under hard to measure conditions (such as inside a living brain). If Joshua were true bold intellectual adventurer, he would also be familiar with "Irreducible Mind" by Kelly, Kelly, Crabtree, Guald, Grosso and Greyson, and not so quick to claim that there is 'absolutely no evidence' for the soul. It is true that a reliable 'soul detector' instrument has yet to be invented, notwithstanding that our ordinary consciousness does a pretty good job in respect to another conscious person/animal. If Joshua Greene were correct and there was no soul there to find (ever, even after birth), then his argument against pro-life would work as well, and his suggestion "let's try utilitarianism" would be a good one. On the other hand, being an atheist / reductionist / fundamental materialist seems like the easy way out, ducking all kinds of interesting issues and evidence. And a fully materialist world doesn't have anything of importance in it anyway. Asteroid hit and everyone is dead? So what... Just a bunch of molecules that got rearranged.

Throughout the book, I had a wish that Joshua Greene (and other moral philosophers) would step up to the reality of our finite planet and the need ultimately to live in a sustainable way, waiting only for the sun to burn out. This bears on all manner of practical moral problems in the us vs. them category. It isn't just climate change, it's the peak everything story, the new Malthusians. The planet really is finite. Let's hear some data, moral analysis and argumentation about this. There is nothing about a utilitarian take on (over-) population in this volume.

In the discussion on liberalism, the author *almost* describes why conventional liberalism is hopeless muddled and incoherent. Are liberals pro-happiness or not? Or are certain cases of selfishness (pro-choice) really OK? I appreciated his statement of departures from conventional liberalism (you'll have to buy the book to get this list… I didn't take good notes at this point). But liberalism will never be a tribe if it is really a set of incoherent political positions that are baldly aimed at stitching together voting blocks rather than envisioning a world of greater cooperation. At least the atavistic, knuckle dragging other side has a simple formula: "do what you want".

I also recommend "Our Political Nature" by Avi Tuschman, primarily because the model presented there for political positioning (tribalism vs. non-tribalism, hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, bad human nature vs. good human nature) is at least coherent and useful for reflecting on why both democratic and republican positions are for the most part missing the point and/ or repellent.

At the end of the day, if these type of discussions are your cup of tea, definitely buy this book (or get it on audio, which is what I did), as your time will be well rewarded. I give it 4 stars because of various holes (some noted above), but this could be easily remedied in a 2nd edition, given that it is a very clear and well written book as a foundation.

This is an academic's desperate attempt to make a contribution in a saturated field.

Joshua Greene’s book, Moral Tribes, is an attempt to justify utilitarian ethics that badly misses the mark….

If you want another book about how conservatives need to 'change' to find consensus, and liberal thought is superior, then this book is for you…..these 3 comments are from other reviews that I find ‘hit the mark.’

I did not finish the book. It goes on for 350+ pages and with index, etc its 420+ pages.
I did not find the authors writing style to be too interesting.
With regards to Racial Bias, the author offers his biases. This is from Seiberts 2 star review

[The politics of the Holocaust are similar. Anybody who questions any aspect of the Holocaust is automatically branded an anti-Semite. Unless, inconveniently, they are Jewish, such as Norman Finklestein or Noam Chomsky. Then the question becomes, how can they betray the tribe? There seems to be a concern not to find the truth, but to protect Jewish interests.

Greene quotes a clever retort that Alan Derschowitz made to an unnamed "Holocaust denier" who asked for a debate. I'm sure that the person would not characterize himself as a denier, simply one attempting to clarify the facts, such as how many really died. I would encourage Greene to follow his instincts, and distrust anybody who wraps themselves in the banner of morality just as surely as he correctly distrusts those who wrap themselves in rhetoric about rights or religion.
Shutting people up, refusing to hear arguments on the Holocaust, AIDS or global warming, cannot be the moral course of action.] [end quote][isnt that what the store and Israel do?].

Mr Greene does not mention if he has a PhD [on the dust jacket] but I assume he does.
He and his [moral?] tribe have controlled his turf, Harvard, for quite some time. They will continue to dismantle the free world.

This book sheds light on the mechanics of our decision making process, and explains why it seems so futile to get on the same page with the other camp or other party or person. Perhaps the understanding of our own subconscious bias helps us better influence others in so called principled compromises and creates a happier place to live and work together.

I agree that tribes form shared beliefs – cultures - and the tribes conflict where their beliefs conflict. I disagree with the solution. Adopting utilitarianism to form a meta-morality is noble, but naïve.

The first half of the book is marvelous. I left the first half of the book more comfortable questioning other’s sense of morality. It turns out we are fairly pragmatic in how we establish ethics; we are biased and adopt the version of ethics that best suits our needs.

Cultures, nearly universally, find altruism desirable. But is cooperating confirmation of altruism. Similar to Origins of Virtues, Greene dissects altruism. According to Greene emotions that compel us to cooperate - concern for others, direct reciprocity, commitments to threats and promises, reputation, sensitivity to signal of group membership, and indirect reciprocity – are also optimal for a selfish perspective.

Modern life creates a new problem by bringing multiple tribal ethic systems into conflict. Instead of arguing about ethics at the tribal level, we are arguing about ethics at the global level. Greene advocates that only utilitarianism - deep pragmatism - resolves these conflicts. Greene would like to see utilitarianism become a meta-morality to arbitrate differences in moral codes.

For me there is no resolution. Timing spent formalizing a meta-morality is better spent learning how to protect yourself from others; becoming self reliant and resilient.

Moral Tribes realign an old conflict in moral philosophy (deontology or utilityflavienses?) into new terms. Utilitarianism is presented in a new insigt; conteporary moral philosophers must take it in account.

This book is repetitive within the chapters and the book. The author presents his theory and dismisses other possibilities easily. The examples he provides to demonstrate his thoughts are too simple to apply across individuals.

This book is emblematic of the failure of American social science and education.
That said Greene's thesis is a mile wide and an inch deep. It is, as he states, "an ambitious book." Indeed solving the world's moral problems is a bit much for an ivory tower liberal with little dirt under his fingernails. He is not particularly well read or worldly and fails miserably in what can only be described as a screed.
Greene doesn't like conservatives or, for that matter white people. He openly states that what he is offering is "the opportunity to join forces with the like-minded." In other words he is of the liberal elite, by the liberal elite and writes only for the liberal elite. Believe me it shows.
Greene eschews numbered endnotes. While he tells us [that] his footnotes are "packed with supporting materials and source citations..." there is very little of either. He also states he doesn't "..want to clutter our views with hundreds of little numbers." Why not? Is not their purpose to give the reader source materials, citations and insights? Anyway, his reasons for this omission to me means he is unsure of his source materials and/or is trying to hide something. It is also very childish.
Greene's primary sources are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Just for window dressing he includes Aristotle and Plato. He never cites any of them directly. So in addition to being a poor scholar he hasn't taken the time to read the classics. That he makes things up out of whole cloth couldn't be more obvious.
In addition to his ridiculous social engineering experiments, one secondary source is another social scientist Jonathan Haidt Both use the differences between [American] liberals and conservatives as theses. In my view both miss the point. However, unlike Haidt Greene goes out of his way to ridicule conservatives, He despicably and ridiculously compares them to the Taliban. I guess we should expect much more from a man who began developing his ideas "in his late teens." He apparently has not grown up.
Anyway, a big difference between ;liberals' like Greene and conservatives is [that] liberals are ruled by emotion while conservatives are much more grounded in history and logic. Liberals, such as Greene tend to give into people's wants while conservatives see a big difference between needs and wants. In that regard they are more concerned with both individual as well as societal needs over their wants. (see, Kenneth Minogue's The Servile Mind for a more mature and detailed view)
It is interesting how Greene states that he is for more school choice and "wants more competition in the public schools." But like much of his work does not follow it up with his opinion of vouchers and charter schools. That is prototypical liberal-just throw a platitude or a syllogism into the mix. It looks and feels good and who knows maybe the uneducated will take you seriously. Which is a good working definition of Greene's "liberalism".
Go to the library if you want to read this trash. It is not all that deep. In my opinion it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Shame on Penguin Press for publishing it. Really sad example of scholarship.

Liberal partisan trash.

If you want another book about how conservatives need to 'change' to find consensus, and liberal thought is superior, then this book is for you.

If you want to actually learn how liberal and conservative mind work, and find common ground, Johnathan Haidt's book Righteous Mind is much, much, much better.

This book is emblematic of the failure of American social science and education.
That said Greene's thesis is a mile wide and an inch deep. It is, as he states, "an ambitious book." Indeed solving the world's moral problems is a bit much for an ivory tower liberal with little dirt under his fingernails. He is not particularly well read or worldly and fails miserably in what can only be described as a screed.
Greene doesn't like conservatives or, for that matter white people. He openly states that what he is offering is "the opportunity to join forces with the like-minded." In other words he is of the liberal elite, by the liberal elite and writes only for the liberal elite. Believe me it shows.
Greene eschews numbered endnotes. While he tells us [that] his footnotes are "packed with supporting materials and source citations..." there is very little of either. He also states he doesn't "..want to clutter our views with hundreds of little numbers." Why not? Is not their purpose to give the reader source materials, citations and insights? Anyway, his reasons for this omission to me means he is unsure of his source materials and/or is trying to hide something. It is also very childish.
Greene's primary sources are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Just for window dressing he includes Aristotle and Plato. He never cites any of them directly. So in addition to being a poor scholar he hasn't taken the time to read the classics. That he makes things up out of whole cloth couldn't be more obvious.
In addition to his ridiculous social engineering experiments, one secondary source is another social scientist Jonathan Haidt Both use the differences between [American] liberals and conservatives as theses. In my view both miss the point. However, unlike Haidt Greene goes out of his way to ridicule conservatives, He despicably and ridiculously compares them to the Taliban. I guess we should expect much more from a man who began developing his ideas "in his late teens." He apparently has not grown up.
Anyway, a big difference between ;liberals' like Greene and conservatives is [that] liberals are ruled by emotion while conservatives are much more grounded in history and logic. Liberals, such as Greene tend to give into people's wants while conservatives see a big difference between needs and wants. In that regard they are more concerned with both individual as well as societal needs over their wants. (see, Kenneth Minogue's The Servile Mind for a more mature and detailed view)
It is interesting how Greene states that he is for more school choice and "wants more competition in the public schools." But like much of his work does not follow it up with his opinion of vouchers and charter schools. That is prototypical liberal-just throw a platitude or a syllogism into the mix. It looks and feels good and who knows maybe the uneducated will take you seriously. Which is a good working definition of Greene's "liberalism".
Go to the library if you want to read this trash. It is not all that deep. In my opinion it is not worth the paper it is printed on. Shame on Penguin Press for publishing it. Really sad example of scholarship.

Liberal partisan trash.

If you want another book about how conservatives need to 'change' to find consensus, and liberal thought is superior, then this book is for you.

If you want to actually learn how liberal and conservative mind work, and find common ground, Johnathan Haidt's book Righteous Mind is much, much, much better.

About two years ago I attended a lecture that Professor Greene was giving. In this lecture Joshua used numerous slurs attacking me as a person and not the research that my colleagues and me had published in peer-review journals. He did not know I was in the audience and resisted any apology at name calling when I stood up and called him out on it. He had never met me and judged me solely on my published research.

I was absolutely shocked to see that he had written this book. It seems to me it is like Enron writing a book about ethical accounting.

We should stop supporting people that are hypocritical in their thinking. If you write a book about morality, standing up at conferences and degrading and name-calling of your colleagues, whom you never met, is not a good start. This type of behavior should have been identified by the publisher of the book prior.

Please support me in not buying this book and supporting this hypocritical and mean author.