More rambling discussion than science...

books:

	• The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule Michael Shermer Holt Paperbacks, 2005 - 368 pages average customer review:based on 31 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Good Complement to The God Delusion

Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion makes the argument that ethics and morals do not depend upon a God or religion. Dawkins, however, does not address the gap that people might need religion upon which to base their morals and ethics. Shermer explores non-religious bases for morality and ethics in his book.

Shermer makes the point that humans have evolved with a working set of morals. Organized religions have often codified and formalized these morals. For example, the "Golden Rule" can be found in almost every major religion. This point helps to make it clear that even though I learned my morals in a Catholic environment, I don't need Catholicism to be moral.

Shermer proposes a concept called "provisional ethics in which moral or immoral means confirmed to such extent it would be reasonable to offer provisional assent". There are some rough spots in the justification for provisional ethics. However, I think Shermer is on the right track. Provisional ethics are much more reasonable than either absolute ethics or relative ethics.

for more information click here

"Goodness" is a Vector

Shermer's book is a contribution to a theory of good and evil.
Utility theory in economics is an earlier contribution to formalizing
a notion of "good."
We now know that the traditional scalar theory of utility is unsound
(Beardon, et al, J. of Mathematical Economics, 37, 17-38, 2002) and
that utility must (in general) be a vector (Thrall, Decision Processes,
1960, Wiley, NY).
Similarly, any other formalization of "goodness-evil" must be a vector
quantity. This explains the pluralism that characterizes Shermer's
work.
It has often been a source of confusion to observe that people can be
both good AND evil. This is now explained in terms of the various
vector components one of which might be quite "positive" (strongly
"good") while another component might be quite "negative" (strongly
"bad").

for more information click here

More rambling discussion than science...

The one time theist Micheal Shermer has become the St. Augustine of the modern skeptical movement.

Like Augustine, Shermer became converted to the faith (on in this case atheisim) of his mother and like Augustine Shermer approaches his new found faith with that missionary zeal so often akin to converts.

To begin, contrary to the tile of the book, only one half of Mr. Shermer's discussion relates to the "science" of good and evil. The rest is a recount of philosophical speculation...sometimes his, sometimes others but always uniquely irrelevant in that special way pure philosophical discussion so often is.

As it relates to the science of good and evil, two great books on this topic are Matt Ridley's "Origins of Virtue" which provides an evolutionary explanation for why people would place the interest of others before their own and Jeffrey Moses' "Oneness" which verbatim places the various religions statements of the golden rule (among other ethical precepts) so that you can really see just how doctrinally, the world's constituted faiths resemble each other.

In this way, the two cited books actually make the point it would seem Shermer is trying to make: that evolutionarily speaking ethical incentive is identical among people's even if their myths of origin differ. From this, it would more naturally follow that while being universal, the ethical precepts command univerisal adherence whereas the myths of beginning (or so the reasoning could go) merely demand respect as vaunted artifacts of culture.

If you've read other Shermer material or seen him speak, you know for yourself that he could have done better.

for more information click here

excellent

Shermer summarizes the consensus from various scientific disciplines. Since it can read like a textbook, it may be best to skip around to topics of interest. Great source for info and logical argument without being confrontational (offensive) towards religious readers.

One of Shermer's Greats

Let me begin by saying that I love everything Shermer. He is one of a few scientists out there who actually write lucid philosophy. Another scientist who does that same is Tyler Volk. This book secures the place of science in the morality debate. One of the most important ideas that I took away from the book was the idea of "transcendental empiricism" when it comes to the origin of morality. Too often philosophers frame the debate of morality as either being something outside of the human mind - transcendentalism or a product of the human mind and experience - empiricism. The famous question from ancient Greek philosophy, "Do the Gods love something because it is holy or is it holy because the Gods love it?". Shermer elaborates on this age-old debate saying that neither transcendentalism or empiricism are exclusively true. A more accurate notion of the origins of morality is a combination of the two ideas: Transcendental empiricism. Transcendental because it is not us that devise the moral codes, it is a remnant of evolution dating back to our hominid ancestors. And it is empirical because it is indeed us (as opposed to supernatural forces) that have devised the moral code. Also the idea of premoral sentiments, as presented in the book, in non-human animals is very important to these ideas.

I am really offended by the Washington Post review of this book. The reviewer Anthony Brandt mentions that, "He (Shermer) was, in college, a fundamentalist Christian, taking a degree in psychology and biology from Pepperdine University, a fundamentalist fortress in the hills above Malibu." What does that have anything to do with Shermer's work or this book for that matter? Are we all to be judged by the circumstances that we were born in, or brought up in? Why is Brandt implying that since Shermer used to be a fundamentalist Christian that his ideas are somehow suspect? This is highly inappropriate and borders on slander as it relies on defaming the author rather than arguing with the ideas presented in the book. Another quote from the review, Brandt says that, "If he has a god, it is Charles Darwin". Quite simply, HOW DARE HE say something like that? We all have great writers and scientists that we are influenced by, none who is producing literary or scientific works is an island unto herself, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, but for Brandt to say that Shermer's God is Darwin??? More defamatory slander that has nothing to do with the contents of the book. Why is Shermer subject to such "criticism", simply because he is an atheist? (or nontheist as Shermer likes to put it).

Brandt, after much ranting, finally decides to tackle the ideas themselves as presented in the book. Of course, it all comes down to altruism. The one concept critics can reliably return to when questioning the sociobiological theory of morality. Shermer spends a great deal of time in the book elaborating upon group dynamics and group selection. "There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection." Brandt argues that the idea of group selection is something "strict Darwinists abjure". I suppose Brandt is now the leading authority on what "Darwinists" propose?? How can he after having criticized Shermer and Darwin claim to expound what it is that "Darwinists" really believe? Brandt seems to forget that unlike other theorists, Shermer is a scientist and his ideas draw upon research in Anthropology, sociology, biology and history. Is Brandt really out to debunk all this research? I don't understand what his rationale is behind discrediting these ideas.

Lastly, Brandt mentions that, "It is, in a sense, unfortunate that this should be so, for it may explain why the book, despite its highly charged subject matter, lacks passion. Or it may just be that Shermer is not an eloquent writer. His prose is flat and has a tendency to shift tone and fall into the demotic at odd moments ("bass ackward" is the worst instance), as if he were unclear who his audience is or as if he were writing for television. The result is that he is not entirely convincing. He is a meliorist, but he never persuaded me that human beings had become "better" -- better behaved, less filled with hate, less murderous -- since the Greeks, say, or since World War II". Forgive me for calling Brandt an idiot, but the idiot needs to realize that if he wants to read "passionate" writing he can read Hemingway and Tolstoy. As for convincing idiots that we have "become better since the Greeks or WW2", THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BOOK OR THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION. This is the same kind of "argument" creationists expound against evolution, "If evolution is so great and all-explaining, why have we not "seen" anything evolve?" That is because evolution works in geological time and cannot be "witnessed" during our short lifespans or memory of history.

Finally, I really don't understand why a great newspaper such as the Washington Post assigned the review of this book to Brandt who seems like nothing but a creationist in intellectual clothing. It is shameful to see the author being defamed for what he once was, a Christian, and the book being described as "lacking passion" for the lack of better criticism. This book as a great achievement for Shermer, and a great contribution to understanding the origins and nature of our morality. Shermer is often harpooned as leaving God out of the equation of morality, but we do not need God to be good.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

From bestselling author Michael Shermer, an investigation of the evolution of morality
that is "a paragon of popularized science and philosophy" The Sun (Baltimore)

A century and a half after Darwin first proposed an "evolutionary ethics," science has begun to tackle the roots of morality. Just as evolutionary biologists study why we are hungry (to motivate us to eat) or why sex is enjoyable (to motivate us to procreate), they are now searching for the very nature of humanity.

In The Science of Good and Evil, science historian Michael Shermer explores how humans evolved from social primates to moral primates; how and why morality motivates the human animal; and how the foundation of moral principles can be built upon empirical evidence.

Along the way he explains the implications of scientific findings for fate and free will, the existence of pure good and pure evil, and the development of early moral sentiments among the first humans. As he closes the divide between science and morality, Shermer draws on stories from the Yanamamö, infamously known as the "fierce people" of the tropical rain forest, to the Stanford studies on jailers' behavior in prisons. The Science of Good and Evil is ultimately a profound look at the moral animal, belief, and the scientific pursuit of truth.

for more information click here

hot