We are living in the most moral period of our species’ history. Best-selling author Michael Shermer’s most accomplished and ambitious book to date demonstrates how the scientific way of thinking has made people, and society as a whole, more moral. Ever since the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment thinkers consciously applied the methods of science to solve social and moral problems. The experimental methods and analytical reasoning of science created the modern world of liberal democracies, civil rights and civil liberties, equal justice under the law, open political and economic borders, free minds and free markets, and prosperity the likes of which no human society in history has ever enjoyed. More people in more places have greater rights, freedoms, liberties, literacy, education, and prosperity - the likes of which no human society in history has ever enjoyed. In this provocative and compelling book - that includes brief histories of freedom rights, women’s rights, gay rights, and animal rights, along with considerations of the nature of evil and moral regress - Shermer explains how abstract reasoning, rationality, empiricism, skepticism - scientific ways of thinking - have profoundly changed the way we perceive morality and, indeed, move us ever closer to a more just world.
©2015 Michael Shermer (P)2015 Michael Shermer
“...It’s an honest, clear account of morality and justice that makes those theoretical concepts come alive as ubiquitous real-life choices.” (Jared Diamond, Pulitzer-prize-winning author of the best-selling books Guns, Germs, and Steel, Collapse, and The World Until Yesterday)
“A thrilling and fascinating book, which could change your view of human history and human destiny.” (Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology at Harvard University)
“Science can’t, by itself, tell you right from wrong. But there’s no better tool for the purpose than the style of moral philosophy that’s inspired by science, and Michael Shermer is a master of that style.” (Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion)
l'enfer c'est les autres
This book tries to fill in some of the whys in Steven Pinker's book "Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence has Declined". The author starts off by defining morality as the "flourishing and surviving of sentient beings". It's not a perfect definition but in general the listener can latch on to it.
The author does go beyond Pinker's book and tries to fill in more of the reasons why violence has declined by looking at the facts from a morality point of view. Shermer knows it is more profitable to realize that man is the measure of all things and that our values are not etched in stone and aren't externally given to people, but are derived by people.
The continuous contextual approach (inductive) is almost always better than a binary, absolute approach (deductive). Using reason, science and observation can make us understand and appreciate the flourishing and surviving of others who aren't necessarily in our tribal group, be it kin, friend, community, or other self selected but always exclusionary group which divides 'us' from 'them' in some manner and leads to the widening of our moral sphere.
He looks at how our moral sphere is constantly becoming more inclusive. Slavery is the ultimate us against them. The realization of the wrongness of slavery and its abolition was a slow continuous process. For those who derive their values from external sources, the revealed religion sources just get it wrong on slavery. He considers in detail the widening of the moral sphere for less misogynistic attitudes towards women, the slow process of no longer making gays the other and even considers some of the issues in speciesism (the author is a specieist, as I am too, but I understand the issues).
It's hard for me not to fully embrace a book were I admire an author as much as I admire Michael Shermer, I read his articles frequently, I love his debates on the internet, he quotes accurately from Gene Rodenberry and Star Trek, he seems to love the same episodes of Twilight Zone that I do, and he quotes Michio Kaku extensively and other such things that I love too.
But, he doesn't stick to the narrative and falls off the track. For example, I am not sure why he uses Piketty and his "Capital in the 21st Century" to try to refute Piketty's own thesis. Inequalities are real in the world (and within America) and have been getting worse. He seems to think corporations aren't a threat to moral development and represent moral good. For me, corporations are not people, and can be a force of bad. He had a lot of things like that in this book which only gets in the way of his own thesis.
It's a minor thing, but I can't help myself. The author says "Alan Turing is agruably the most important man for the Allied's victory in WW II". Alan Turing is a hero of mine, but I don't think that statement is defensible. Betchley Park was a cooperative, and the Polish Mathematicians (God Bless the Poles!), cracked the enigma code first. For a marvelous audible book on the subject read, "Seizing the Enigma". Also, he states "most people agree that for WW I both sides are to blame". I would strongly recommend Max Hasting's recent book, "Catastrophe 1914" for a refutation of that statement.
I would say, Pinker's book, "Better Angels of our Nature" is my favorite book. It opened my eyes to how the world has improved since the dawn of time and how our moral sphere keeps getting wider (less of us against them and more of us). Most of what is good in Shermer's book is in Pinker's book. I realize Pinker's book is very technical. This book is not. Even though the author does ramble (much like this book review!), this book is a fine substitute for Pinker's book for those who don't love sets of tables, long historical reviews, an author who keeps on his narrative and summaries of scientific papers.
Enjoyable, informing and entertaining throughout. Will reinforce and elucidate many of the ideas you have been exposed, questioned or were curious about as well many you never heard.
A learning experience to be remembered and passed to others.
Thoughtful but questionable data and thesis.
A collection of studies and subjective conclusions. Conclusions do not take into account that the "current moral arc" is the result of countervailing force and threats of violence. The author appears oblivious to his personal cherry picking. Take a closer look at reality.
I have a strong bias which has me distrust any vision of an arc of history. It seems easy to define them, and then just as easy to get derailed. Look at the shift from the relative peace of the late 19th to the horror of the early 20th Century. I found much of what was on offer to be empirically grounded and seemingly sound. Where I was challenged was in the notion of a move towards more local political autonomy as an answer to many of our current ills. However, I don't think he addressed, at all, the power and efficiency of large organizations. Big businesses don't get larger for no reason or for reasons of government preference, but, because of efficiencies that can be obtained as a larger organization. A larger organization can allow for more specialization in tasks, which allows for better, overall, decision making, because you have the internal expertise to understand thing better. I work in the tech world, and it's the ability, in large organizations, to have well trained and well paid specialists, who can do more efficient implementations of various technologies. Now, when you create these small organizations they simply can't afford the specialists. And, it's not like government is the only source of power within a society. Businesses influence us, and when you have a huge disparity in power and resource, then you disadvantage the smaller organization, so the city-state is at an extreme disadvantage to the Walmarts of the world. And, while changing our morality is a good goal, you want some catch all to create a floor for behavior. I don't think Somalia is any more immoral than any where else, yet there is no local power to create order, and secure the rights of the citizen. I'd be curious to explore more deeply with the author what multi-national corporations will look like, and what will keep them in line? And how will we know when the get out of line?
I knew he was a libertarian going in, but as a scientist he brought in his "near disgust" of liberals a bit too much, and then his economic analysis at the end seemed to be narrowed down to disproving anything that didn't have a libertarian bent. Ironically he seemed to have renounced his belief in some things conservative to get to where he was "morally" using the scientific method then used a bias to protect his economic principles from scrutiny. Of my moderate to liberal bias is affecting my ideas, it's just that after reading many books on economics recently it seems like he made short shrift of economic disparity. In six paragraphs he "destroyed" Thomas Piketty. While Shermer may be right it does seem like he was "a little" skimpy on his rebuttal, especially the analysis of what people think the disparity is. That seemed very suspect as a scientific justification for there not really being disparity. It was very extraneous at least for as much weight as it got in his argument. ... The narration was fair. I got used to their voices. The female narrator was very good, but I was confused about who was talking, was she him when i thought she was him, or was she quoting someone else?
"90% excellent but a little biased at the end"
I found the subject matter very interesting, but I think it's largely a retelling of Steven Pinker's 'Better Angles of our Nature". Personally, I preferred Better Angles, but that may be because I listened to that one first. Also, I feel this one shows the author's biases in the last few chaptets.
"Narrator, very poor."
The narrator, Melody Zownir, performs little better than an Automatic reader. Annoying, and extremely detracting from enjoyment.
"Scholarly and Optimistic - but oddly biased."
The moral arc of the title is Peter Singers concept of a series of concentric "circles of care" with self & family in the centre, moving outward to friends, colleagues, tribe, Nation, other groups, other humans, animals, the environment etc.
This book sets out to establish two main claims: The first is that human history is a story of moral as well as intellectual progress - an upward and outward extending of the moral arc. The second is that our moral progress is a consequence of our intellectual progress, especially in Science.
For the first, Michael Shermer is very much extending the arguments put forward by Stephen Pinker in "The Better Angels of our Nature", for which this book is a kind of sequel, and he addresses (I think convincingly), the objections raised by sceptics such as John Gray, as to evidence of our moral progress.
Shermer convincingly goes on to argue that advances in Science and technology, involving better education methods, higher literacy, greater cognitive conceptual ability (Flynn effect), lower child mortality, improved physical and psychological health etc. and the spread of Enlightenment values have resulted in an upward curving of the moral arc., He takes great pains to show how an "ought" can be derived from an "is" (Humes fork), and thus moral progress is inevitably linked to progress in understanding. Indeed, he even goes so far as to assert that evil is the result of factual error, corrected through Science, and Voltaire's "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" becomes something of a central theme.
His thesis is only slightly undermined by the fact that many thousands of animals are maimed, mutilated, and killed each year, to satisfy our curiosity in the name of Science, whose mechanistic modelling of biological organisms may assuage the obvious cognitive dissonance aroused. Unfortunately, in the chapter on "A Moral Science of Animal Rights", he only tangentially addresses this obvious contradiction.
More disappointingly, having written one of the best secular books on the biology/psychology of religion in "The Believing Brain", his chapter on "Why Religion is Not the Source of Moral Progress" is a most disappointing "straw man" argument. For Shermer religion is clearly a case of believed "absurdity", leading to atrocity.
But was religion really the cause of World War I, because German soldiers had "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles? Was the American Civil War really a religious war because Christians fought on both sides?
I have to admit, I looked forward to a nuanced examination of the evolutionary rationale for religion such as David Sloan Wilson gives in "Darwin's Cathedral", or analysis such as Joshua Greene's "Moral Tribes". For, having convincingly established our "moral progress" over the course of history, Shermer's case against religion seems largely to rest on the barbarity of ancient laws and peoples in the Bible judged by modern standards. Why didn't the Bible forbid slavery? Why did Yahweh encourage so much genocide? Wouldn't an alternative 10 commandments be better? Leviticus especially is highlighted as full of cruel and unusual laws, executing recalcitrant teenagers and ways to sell your children as slaves.
Great stuff, if the debate was whether the Bible is a rule book written by God! However, that's not the issue. As it has all the hallmarks of being written by humans - about God, one might expect it to be full of messy contradictions, outdated tribal mores, in places seeming nonsense, and in places timeless wisdom. I felt I was trapped in the worst sort of fundamentalist bible class, with no attempt to understand, interpret or explain within a historical or geographical context.
But, all this theologising in the book is beside the point, which is whether religion has been a source of moral progress. Greene in his book, usefully differentiates between me vs. us, and us vs. them. In most cases religion promotes prosocial "us over me" behaviours but too often exacerbates "us vs. them" sectarian divisions, while Wilson compares harsh desert conditions where danger and competition may favour harsh religions promoting strong group tribalism (think IS), with more liberal religions thriving in less perilous, more affluent temperate zones. I really wanted Shermer to have provided some similar level of intelligent objective analysis.
Moreover, the missing central element of the whole book is cultural evolution. While Shermer does a great job explaining the dilemma of collaboration vs. exploitation in terms of genes, it is surely through a process of cultural evolution - the spreading of knowledge, skills, values and ideas and the competition and selection between them, that we are evolving ethically. Of this he says almost nothing.
I feel I've been quite critical, and overall it is a well researched book, containing lots of insights, research data and theory, covering a wide remit. I really liked the contrapuntal readings by the author and Melody Zownir, a technique which has worked well for Richard Dawkins in his audiobooks. In the end, the message is optimistic and celebratory. As we widen the global network of relationships, and progress in science, education and literacy, our moral arc will continue to broaden and curve upwards. The evidence is overwhelming that we are becoming more reasonable, ethically aware and humane, showing concern for the welfare not only of our own species, but for non human animals, ecology and the planet.
"Not very original."
This is not Shermer's best work.More original material would have improved this work rather than much of it being a compilation of the work of others. The first half especially seemed to drag in interminably. There was some improvement in the second half and it became less noisome.I would sincerely recommend that Shermer employ a professional to read his work aloud. The voice of the female performer was all but indistinguishable from that of Siri on the iPhone. This was especially evident in her inability to pronounce several words properly.
Report Inappropriate Content