pizaz1001 Oh, for sure. It is interesting to think about what kind of "moral" results we could achieve via non-moral means. But at the same time it physically hurts to see that someone somehow associated this insight with "moral relativism."
+Baruch Spinoza He refines it by looking away from the moral absolutists view, and hence, forthcoming in the moral relativist view. Moral relativism is the opposite of moral absolutism meaning that morals are particular, changing, and subjective. When he talks about moving away from morals, he means that we shouldn't just respect others morals and turn our cheek, but that we should look for non-moral solutions, giving a twist to moral relativism. At least, this is what I got from it. Titles are suppose to be eye-catching to draw in people. That's what newspapers, youtubers, bloggers, etc., do to get people to see their stuff. It may be exaggerated but it doesn't not fit the bill.
+FreshBleach Hi FreshBleach. Sure, "moral relativism" is the idea that morality is "relative" to a particular individual or society. Whereas "moral absolutism" is the idea that there are at least some "exception-less" moral principles; i.e. principles that hold regardless of time or place. One would seem to preclude the other. But how does Pinker's claim that "not all problems require a 'moralistic' solution" address either of these views? I would say that Pinker's view as stated here has nothing to do with relativism - other than, (by implication), he seems to think that there are in fact "results" that he would accept as "moral." (Which seems to go *against* relativism.) I would say that, rather than being "eye-catching," the title here is just misleading. Why wouldn't something like: "Steven Pinker Claims That Not All Problems Require Moralizing" be just as eye-catching?
it has been 7 years since your comment about the titles of RUclips videos...today in 2022 what percent of YT vids live up to their titles? How much clickbait, marketing, misleading provocative headlines have you read since this one? For me it has been thousands...still lots to learn here in this media driven postmodernist world...but one has to wade thru the BS to get some kernels of wisdom...Pinker has supplied many.
Well, im not so sure. If Pinker thought he were talking about moral relativity here he definitley did redefne it. Well he kind of does anyway, in the sense that the moral thing to do can be more relative to the end goal regarding the agroculture stetement of him rather then the high praised individual that fights for morals trough peoples heart like King did. But yeah, thats not really my sense of moral relativism but since the idea fundamentaly is supposed to be RELATIVE who can really know.
Or he talked about how technological advancements can compensate for human stupidity, ignorance and immorality, taking responsibility away from individuals and placing it in the hands of technocrats.
Michelangelo Caravaggio either way the title is misleading. What I got from it was that not everything hasa perfect solution (doctor example) and that you don't hear about amazing people sometimes (genetic crop guy example). Not sure where moral relativity comes into play in the video.
But no action with moral goals is amoral isn't it? I don't get Pinker belief system at all. For me coming up with better strategies to improve our moral goals is a moral based action.
samuelps A better example might be the scientists that discovered nuclear magnetic resonance. They were pretty much just interested in the behavior of the nucleus of atoms, but it directly lead to MRI machines in hospitals. It would be hard to say they were acting morally but it saved lives.
exploded into changing my life, because I met Richard Dawkins through Pinker, and was introduced to the Four Horsemen. It branched and branched, until in about one year's time, I went from deist to atheist, from careless about politics to incredibly involved, etcetera. All because one day I was bored. Everything changed for good just because I was bored one day and had the internet.
This is not a video on moral relativism. He basically describes a situation in which moral solutions can be substituted for technological and scientific solutions. The video should be called "Steven Pinker on Scientific Solutions to Moral Problems." It has nothing to do with relativism.
The critical distinction between moral and non-moral responses to human misaction is the distinction between those acting in error despite trying in good faith to do the right thing, and those acting in error because they are cynically and deliberately trying to do the wrong thing.
Since moral relativism breaks down as being a contradictory concept, this video is describing what are pragmatic social contracts (i feel my subconscious hating what I've written).
We get the best outcome when we employ both the moralist's and the technologist's approaches. Every decision, if it's worth bothering about, at all, is a moral struggle.
I think there is another way to redefine it (more on the moral part). Regarding the big question: "what moral framework should we use" (Gods nature, promoting wellbeing, preserving oneself, ..) One could view these as relative moral frameworks. But, in analogy to what Pinker states, a part of that may not be a moral question. But just a factual analyses of our world: what CAN humans think of, what DO they think of,.. for moral frameworks and how do systems like that spread succesfully through populations...
there is a big problem i, terms of defining moral relativity, the one that Steven pinker is talking about is the accurate one while the other is "relative" to an individual or a group which by definition is not relative because it's just a small instance of relativity that concerns an individual or a group, moral relativity means there no absolute one simply put, which also means that there no absolutes like bad and good or helpful and unhelpful or greedy and humble... (sorry im maybe using the wrong words) but each value has its opposite in the spectrum and everybody is somewhere in between
Keeping aside the fact that this video does not say anything on Moral Relativism as in its title, there is a major flaw in Pinker's argument. He ultimately admits that amoral solutions have to be implemented through policy-makers and such which is in itself a political decision, and thus some degree of morality is always involved. No matter how ingenious the doctors or engineers or designers are, there is no "amoral" solution to any practical problem since any solution has to be implemented to work and the decision of implementation always has some moral underpinning.
Saumitra Chakravarty I don't think Pinker would disagree with your statement that some degree of morality is always involved. It seems from the video that he even regards the saving of the patients life to be a "highly moral outcome". But notice how Pinker sometimes uses the word "moralistic" instead of the word 'moral'. For example, he says "I think a lot of improvement in the human condition has come about through non-moralistic improvement." Non-moralistic is not the same thing as amoral. I think what he means by "moralistic solutions" are solutions that focus on enacting justice, or retribution, or the fostering higher ethical principals among society.
For number three, it's basically what he said about Norman: that because he wasn't a civil-rights activist for example, he isn't as well-known even though his contributions vastly bettered the human experience for many people. People tend to think of moral actions in the vein of "pursuing justice", punishing people, changing laws...a more political view....doctors who make cures create great moral good, but people don't tend to think like that/
But no action with moral goals is amoral isn't it? I don't get Pinker belief system at all. For me coming up with better strategies to improve our moral goals is a moral based action. I really want to know if I misunderstood him and how.
I don't, but I find the next quote well fitting as a subset of that philosophy's ideas: «It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages» Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
I am not an expert on the subject, but Utilitarianism may be what you mean. Also, maybe Deontology vs. Consequentialism, in ethics. Also, philosophers who hold to Determinism and also say that Free Will is an illusion don't seem to believe in retribution.
His argument is based on defining the purpose of human life as the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of suffering; if you do something evil in the pursuit of the elimination of human suffering, you are good. Jesus disagrees, but not only Jesus - so too does Aldous Huxley, Siddhartha Gautama (o.g. Buddha), Abraham, Moses and the most remarkable writers and artists of the past, including Tolkien and Lewis and Tolstoy. Wilde said something to the effect (on his deathbed) that his pursuit of pleasure and happiness was a meaningless waste of his life. It's so interesting to me that psychologists believe that, because they have a trivial understanding of how the human brain has been designed, they understand the purpose of existence in the first place. A technologist could understand how a computer was built, but he would not be able to tell you if it had been intended to watch porn or to allow a person to connect with a group that would hep them stop watching it.
I'm very confused as to how this relates to moral relativism. I hear Pinker explaining "non-moral" solutions to problems which are actually moral solutions to problems. Whether you punish a doctor or change the IV tubing, you are still making an action that is for a moral purpose: to save more lives. The idea of moral relativism is that there is no objective morality. I've observed that Pinker has missed the point of moral relativism and is instead discussing ways to ultimately reach the goal of someone who believes in a universal moral law, the moral in this case being that it is morally right to save lives.
brah making sure a patient can't get killed by being administered the wrong drug is by definition a moralistic improvement because you are setting up a system that insures the safety of the participants. It is moral to design the system in such a way that minimizes the possibility of human death if you are designing a system and never think about the safety of the participants but rather only the punishment of those responsible that would be immoral because you are not attempting to provide a safe system bur rather shifting the blame from the system to the individual (the punished doctor)
I think you may have misinterpreted what Pinker meant by the word "moralistic". Google defines it as "overfond of making moral judgements about others' behavior; too ready to moralize." , though you can find other definitions. I think what Pinker is arguing is that many of the best improvements in the human condition *_(Which_* *_he_* *_calls_* *_"highly_* *_moral_* *_outcomes")_* are not so much due to better policies of justice, or improvements in societal norms and ethics, but to technology and innovation. Despite sometimes being morally good, technology and innovation are not necessarily moralistic.
If you redesign the valve so that it does not harm the patient, that probably involves implicitly or explicitly a moral choice. I don't understand this clip. It seems to suggest (but never quite says it) that planners and engineers don't have a moral stance when they design. That's absurd. Read Lewis Mumford, Seymour Melman and Paul Goodman for critiques of that view. What Pinker actually says is that a typical engineer is not a moral champion and that an engineer may do just as well as someone who markets their moral position. That's true. Yet, the way this video is edited lends itself to utter confusion.
Good clip but wrong title. He neither defines nor redefines moral relativism. He's talking about dispassionate evidence-based problem solving. The concept of moral relativism something else, and when he refers to "moralistic" approaches to problem solving he's not referring to that.
The fact that you would snap the I v valve so it doesn't go to the wrong patient implies that it is morally wrong for the medicine to go to the patient. In other words, by solving a problem at all implies a moral incentive to solve said problem. Solution equates a moral ought.
1.this has nothing to do with moral relativism, he is simply arguing that things not generally considered "moral" often produce a great moral good in an objective sense. 2. His first example only applies if you believe in a retributive moral theory, which most thinking people do not3. Why wouldn't making innovations for the good of humankind be considered a moral action exactly?
I want to share a story about myself some people may find intriguing. A day that I was bored, I'm a thinker and it is when I am bored that I get into trouble with my mind- I wondered what one of the elite schools like Harvard or Princeton were like architecturally and systematically (note- I live in a conservative hick zone, so I'm always looking up). I found lectures on RUclips and wondered if I could get to see the faculty up close. I became introduced to Steven Pinker. And then that
i think even the slavery aspect is also related to technology when you see that now a facory owner has access to use machines which work massively efficient than human slaves, so now he has no motives left to enslave people.
+Trent Bell Not that the two solutions are mutually exclusive. Most functioning societies would have different groups of people working on the boards of hospitals and inventing better medical instruments.
"I find this video consistent with Moral universalism" Indeed, Pinker has written extensively on Human universals and even extends many into the rest of animalia. " I don't find it appropriate to say Pinker is trying to redefine moral relativism." Is it appropriate to disregard possible sarcasm, humor or perhaps double entendre in the title or heading of media? Plainly stated: Pinker redefined subtle boundaries within MR, not outright redefined the word. Don't take everything so literal.
Pragmatism and Utilitarianism can arguably still maintain a moralistically relevant foundation, and it often does. Despite what rational-minded individuals might wish, you are not a robot programmed towards optimal efficiency that simultaneously, yet inadvertently, attains a moralistic end. As Alan Watts would say, "it is like the tail trying to wag the dog." And despite how hard you try, you will not reprogram human evolution with a thought experiment. And if you need proof as to why you shouldn't try such a thing, ask the Soviet Union, or Cuba, or China.
Democracy was also a thought experiment. So was universal suffrage, the ending of slavery, and industrialization. These were radical changes over what existed before. You can't generalize like that
As before, people I think tend to look at activists, law-makers.... people who fight with words and desire sociopolitical change as moralistic...the scientist or engineer who actually designs something to better people's lives aren't usually seen as such, even though, as Pinker described, more good change very often is brought by perhaps more 'rational' thinking then distinctly trying to "pursue justice".
What he is deliberately forgets that all scientific revolutions were the direct result of a moral revolution, for example, the Industrial Revolution was a direct result of the ideas of the of the Enlightenment and the increase in freedom of thought and expression
In safety engineering we call that Administrative Controls, not "moralistic solutions." For a linguist, he sure uses the word "moral" in a strange way.
Joseph Martin Pinker is clearly saying that the technological improvement in the IV drip is NOT a moralistic solution. You interpreted him as saying the opposite of what he said. I know it was five years ago, but just thought I'd point that out.
Perhaps it's the same old rift that science is "cold and immoral", even though it often does more good then distinctly moral-driven actions...these old stereotypes probably have a lot to do with why people tend to think this way.
I am not saying you are a communist. BTW I am not an american, I am Scandinavian and I once used to find myself quite on the political red side. Not any more, though. But I find it intriguing that the new atheists share so many of the ideas of the communists. Hitchens was a marxist, and the arrogance, the elitism and the need to belittle the religious people are exactly as that of the old communists. As before, they seem not to even want to take notice of what history has taught mankind.
Religion like all philosophies,Is the invention of man Flawed and Imperfect Subject to amendment,Revision and subject to the will who would use to there own ends,Religion should hold no Special Place in society it should be Subject to scrutiny and Ridicule if People think it necessary, Religious People have a hard Time Separating the Self from there Religion, Mr Hitchens attacked Religion not the Person Practising that Religion
People in the comments here have to realize he probably wasn't asked or indeed tried to answer anything about Moral Relativism, some of the videos on this chanel are just very poorly titled.
He never said it’s not a moral solution, said it’s not a “moralistic” solution. He even called it a “highly moral outcome”. What a tit you are to miss something so obvious.
Pinker speaks of moral relativism not in the sense of different morals but in the sense of moral relevance. Something can be moral because of the context in which it is used, E.g. a light bulb.
What!? His tacit support for "saving lives" is entirely moralistic. Whether the motivation is moral or otherwise, I think the operative word is 'incentive'.
woa, you suppose that killing patients is a bad thing lol..... to save more lives rather than loosing more lives is common sense, but its an example of objective morals.
Joshua Hults Just because something is subjectively bad doesn't mean it's objectively bad. You didn't provide a single piece of evidence that it's "an example of objective morals" as opposed to an example of subjective morals. I'm not saying that morality is subjective. I'm just pointing out the fact that you provided no reason to think that it's objective, so I don't really get the point of your comment.
But isn't it the case that solving problems practically is actually extremely moralistic? I mean if morality is relative, than solving a problem isn't actually better than not solving the problem (or even creating a problem). absolute right and wrong doesn't exist in the eyes of a moral relativist, because to them there is no substance to morality. They believe morality is completely detached from the objective world and therefor baseless. They believe we just make it up out of thin air as if real life experiences and nature have nothing to do with it. So who decides that a doctor killing a patiënt is a problem in the first place? to each their own? the majority? What if the majority becomes genocidal? Is that just right for that specific society at that specific time? the existence of moral dilemma's doesn't prove moral relativism, just like lack of evidence doesn't debunk the scientific method.
If A and B share some properties, it doesn't declare them the same. It hinges on the sameness, overall. And, my testimony is mine, not yours. Saying I'm communist also does not carry with it a point. Implications only work when they don't only make sense in your world broken off from reality. Communism in fact is a good idea, therefor if you had meant to imply it wasn't, thus comparing me to its negativity, you are quite mistaken..
He claims to be a moral relativist... meaning that there is no real right and wrong... But you are presupposing that people suffering and dying due to carelessness or selfishness, ect is not right and therefore wrong.
+2 Edged Words Moral Relativism doesn't have to do with no real right or wrong. It has to do with the fact that morals are changing, subjective, and particular. Like for example, culture. Cultures all have different views of what is right and what is wrong, and a moral relativist respects culture's different views of morals.
Your Host Edge There's no contradiction unless you can show that Pinker's presupposing that it's OBJECTIVELY wrong, as opposed to concluding that it's subjectively wrong for most people in society.
It's funny and alarming to see so many people upvote such naive and ignorant comments on this video and subject. I believe it highlights a critical misunderstanding of what moral relativism is or how far it reaches into subtle day to day happenings. It's a shame, really, that such people who would otherwise be very intelligent and receptive would consider their understanding worthy of basing an opinion on. Opinions are like assholes. Make sure you wipe and clean yours before presenting it.
I find it logict falicy to say you can be good without God. Here's why. We understand from a Biblical worldview that God is all good and nothing can invoke change in God because He is absolute. No relativists will try to say that nothing can be absolute. This itself is logical fallicy because it is an absolute statement. So if any relating says nothing can be absolute then ask them, "Are you absolutely sure?" You quickly see why realitvist logic is illogical. Back to my point. It is common sense that how we judge the world is based upon our presupposments made upon a subject or matter. When we look at a rock we already know it's a rock because its their and we can feel and touch it. So it is obvious that when we judge things we have a basis for which we judge things. Absolute morality is the point made by Christians. We say that God has created a moral absolute and He never changes and has no contradictions of Himself or His Word. So in conclusion we say that God's standard of morality is absolute. It would make sense to say so because it would only make sense if any type of absolute morality is given by God or a higher power of some kind. Only God can deliver moral judgement. For He made morals according to His Will. What God says is good is good. The reason only God can deliver absolute morality is because He is the only one who can enforce it. He is the only being that can tell if something is absolutely wrong because He is absolute. It would only make sense also to say that only a lawgiver that is capable of enforcing his law could give that law. By what athoiurity does a man have to make something moral? The answer is none. For the man himself is not absolute. So he can't give an absolute moral law. Only a power like God can because only he can enforce it. Now a man can be good but not I is own judgement of morals. But it makes no sense to say he is good if there is no absolute. For if I came along and said well you thinks its right but I don't. If I day murder is wrong and you don't then we come to an impasse. It makes no sense to say a man can make moral absolutes when he doesn't have the authority. And also its not possible for a man to be moral unless he knows God or at least the moral understanding of God. For if we are animals as naturalists say then we all have a driven nature for self-centeredness and selfishness so why would any man care about the happiness of another human being. Why do I care whether or not my neighbor is happy? It's because I see Him as the same worth as myself and so I care about his happiness. But if I'm an ankamls then I shouldn't and wouldn't care. So you see that without God their is no way to determine good or innocent on the basis of consensus judgement. It's logical falisy. For men's viewpoints will conflict for the gain of themselves. People will be selfish at their own beneift is they are just animals. So today a man can be good without any knowledge not God or His morals is foolish and stupid. A man needs a deriect authority to tell him what is truly right and what is truly wrong. Now a man might say men can create their own morality that aligns with God's over time. But that is contradicting because it is an arguement based in the assumption that it has a basis. For if early man was starting to become moral then what eoufl he base it on? We understand that things like murder and theft have negative consequences to a society but its not realities to any animal. You don't see lions caring when the hyena's come and steal the kill. They try to fight them off and if they can't then they run off and try to hunt them down later if the must for the sake of their own survival. And also a man can't start to think about the concept of any form of society without the idea of philosophy. A being must understand himself and his actions to be able to think about the moral laws and consequences his actions might cause. So an animals with this concept needs two things. He needs a sense of selflessness. Because society is based on the idea of creating good for the whole. And he needs an understanding of his actions and his own life. But no animal at all has this concept. Animals are born with a selfish nature that they use whatever natrue gave them to benefit themselves. Animals are never greatful and they don't love. They reveal affection and care sue to conditioning or the understanding of reward for compliance. An pet the listens understands that if it acts this way it receives a reward. So any form of compliance shown by animals is based on selfishness. Thisnis why aniamls can't and don't form society. They may form groups understanding the concept of strength in numbers because they understood their physical limitations and their minds are hardwired for their behavior. So you see it is impossible for any animal of man to be the source of morality. It must be an authoritative power that is capable of enforcing His will and laws if need be. It has to be God that creates morality. Morality is based on the idea of selflessness not selfishness. I hope I could make that point clear hear. Have a good day all and God bless. Amen
Joshua Williams You seem to be misunderstanding moral absolutism with just plain old absolutism. A moral relativists saying "there are no moral absolutes" is not contradictory because they are not stating that "there are no absolutes." Saying "there are no absolutes" would be contradictory because that statement would then not be absolute, so I agree with you there. I strongly disagree with your points about god. I do not believe in god and therefore I do not believe that god created moral absolutes. If god created moral absolutes and he is all powerful, than he is either not all powerful or has not created moral absolutes because why would he allow for Hitler to come into being? If he is all powerful he could have prevented Hitler from doing what he did, or god does not think murder is bad. The next possibility is that god does not care or that he is not all powerful. If what god does is good, than what comes first: Good or god? If what is good is anything and everything that god does, than doesn't the concept of good exist before god? The idea that people cannot do good things while being an atheist is a stupid one. It seems that some of the most atrocious behavior done by humans were somehow allowed by a belief in god. Wars have been waged between people of differing religions. Virtually all suicide bombers do this action because of a belief in god. Atheists do things based off of a belief in humanity. They understand that murder is wrong because it feels wrong to kill another person, biologically speaking, killing a human being is wrong and against our nature, and because of our capacities to have empathy and compassion for other people. The idea that people need to believe in god in order to prevent them from doing bad things is absurd, as if that is the only thing preventing a person from killing another person.
Does not sound good at all. Those horsemen you talk about are shallow, bigoted, intolerant and self-absorbed, giving simple answers to people who are easily led. Their followers are mostly young and naive.
This sounds like a great argument for the altruistic nature of capitalism. If I make you something to improve your life, I'll be able to sell it to you and become rich, therefore I will make and advance technology to improve your life.
Engineers can only solve a problem once it has been categorized by someone who has decided it`s a problem . How a problem is solved is not the same as why a problem is solved , or even whether it is a problem at all.
Obviously Steven has no idea how drugs are distributed in a an emergency room or broader hospital setting. Often time drugs come in pill form. Manufacturers try to differentiate drugs by different colors and perhaps sizes, but there is only some much they can do. Drugs injected intravenously have the same appearance and viscosity of many other drugs. How would you design IV valves for individual patients? Anesthesiologists go to school for a long time to study drugs and dosages, so to suggest such a simple fix is really condescending and a total waste of time.
Or as someone who would ask why that man raped his wife, was he simply a psychopath, was he himself abused as a child, or poor, or in desperate need for a lay? Might we be able to alleviate some of these triggers by reducing poverty, or legalizing and reducing the cost of prostitutes, whilst increasing their availability, or inventing rape dolls/robots that cry and struggle when you beat/rape them, so someone could satisfy their deviant sexual urges by taking them out on inanimate objects, without hurting anyone.
***** Neither, I was speaking for Pinker, not for myself. At this point/time, I'm more likely to be the rapist rather than the victim's boyfriend, so it's difficult for me to imagine what it would be like to be faced with that particular moral dilemma. I suppose if it was my mother being raped, I'd probably stop the guy, but I am so emotionally and ethically bankrupt, it's difficult for me to say.
***** Yes, I would stop the guy by any means necessary, it's just that I'm so dead inside right now, I hardly care about my own existence, let alone anyone else's, but all this is becoming too personal and off topic. It does help to illustrate a broader point though, about how our emotional state, can have an impact on our moral decision making, we ask our feelings for input on morality, and since feelings and moods are dynamic, we can give different responses to the same conundrums at different times, or are response time can be slowed, distorted.
Michelangelo Caravaggio In any case, there was a point to my original comment, which is that Pinker and people like him would like to claim the moral high-ground in distancing themselves from petty, vulgar ideas like benevolent sentiment, swift justice, and vengeance. But those ideas are the core of morality. In contrast, his ideas of morality are artificial and without power. My comment was one-quarter a dark joke, and three-quarters in earnest. I would guess Pinker's hypothesized fecklessness in matters of real moral decision-making are not caused by his silly ideas; I think the causality is the other way, with his constitutional inability to deal with real threats leading to the construction of an elaborate belief system in which, protected temporarily by the artificial world of the ivory tower and think tanks, emotional responses are mocked as low-brow and anachronistic.
Um...where's the part where he "redefines Moral Relativism"? Nothing he says here addresses that view. The video is poorly titled.
Baruch Spinoza poorly titled video, but still extremely interesting
pizaz1001 Oh, for sure. It is interesting to think about what kind of "moral" results we could achieve via non-moral means. But at the same time it physically hurts to see that someone somehow associated this insight with "moral relativism."
+Baruch Spinoza He refines it by looking away from the moral absolutists view, and hence, forthcoming in the moral relativist view. Moral relativism is the opposite of moral absolutism meaning that morals are particular, changing, and subjective. When he talks about moving away from morals, he means that we shouldn't just respect others morals and turn our cheek, but that we should look for non-moral solutions, giving a twist to moral relativism. At least, this is what I got from it. Titles are suppose to be eye-catching to draw in people. That's what newspapers, youtubers, bloggers, etc., do to get people to see their stuff. It may be exaggerated but it doesn't not fit the bill.
+FreshBleach Hi FreshBleach. Sure, "moral relativism" is the idea that morality is "relative" to a particular individual or society. Whereas "moral absolutism" is the idea that there are at least some "exception-less" moral principles; i.e. principles that hold regardless of time or place. One would seem to preclude the other. But how does Pinker's claim that "not all problems require a 'moralistic' solution" address either of these views? I would say that Pinker's view as stated here has nothing to do with relativism - other than, (by implication), he seems to think that there are in fact "results" that he would accept as "moral." (Which seems to go *against* relativism.) I would say that, rather than being "eye-catching," the title here is just misleading. Why wouldn't something like: "Steven Pinker Claims That Not All Problems Require Moralizing" be just as eye-catching?
it has been 7 years since your comment about the titles of RUclips videos...today in 2022 what percent of YT vids live up to their titles? How much clickbait, marketing, misleading provocative headlines have you read since this one? For me it has been thousands...still lots to learn here in this media driven postmodernist world...but one has to wade thru the BS to get some kernels of wisdom...Pinker has supplied many.
This is a terrible title.
Well, im not so sure. If Pinker thought he were talking about moral relativity here he definitley did redefne it. Well he kind of does anyway, in the sense that the moral thing to do can be more relative to the end goal regarding the agroculture stetement of him rather then the high praised individual that fights for morals trough peoples heart like King did.
But yeah, thats not really my sense of moral relativism but since the idea fundamentaly is supposed to be RELATIVE who can really know.
Why?
He did not talk about moral relativism, he talked about amoral actions to solve problems.
Or he talked about how technological advancements can compensate for human stupidity, ignorance and immorality, taking responsibility away from individuals and placing it in the hands of technocrats.
Michelangelo Caravaggio either way the title is misleading. What I got from it was that not everything hasa perfect solution (doctor example) and that you don't hear about amazing people sometimes (genetic crop guy example). Not sure where moral relativity comes into play in the video.
not even amoral actions, just actions that don't stem from our primitive intuitions about morality.
But no action with moral goals is amoral isn't it? I don't get Pinker belief system at all. For me coming up with better strategies to improve our moral goals is a moral based action.
samuelps
A better example might be the scientists that discovered nuclear magnetic resonance. They were pretty much just interested in the behavior of the nucleus of atoms, but it directly lead to MRI machines in hospitals. It would be hard to say they were acting morally but it saved lives.
He is absolutely right... it is about being realistic and focusing on the problems...
Why not both? Punish the careless, improve the process.
exploded into changing my life, because I met Richard Dawkins through Pinker, and was introduced to the Four Horsemen. It branched and branched, until in about one year's time, I went from deist to atheist, from careless about politics to incredibly involved, etcetera. All because one day I was bored.
Everything changed for good just because I was bored one day and had the internet.
I didn't get it. How did Pinky redefined moral relativism?
@Bat Computer jesus
This is not a video on moral relativism. He basically describes a situation in which moral solutions can be substituted for technological and scientific solutions. The video should be called "Steven Pinker on Scientific Solutions to Moral Problems." It has nothing to do with relativism.
He didn't really talk about moral relativism though. However, good video!
The critical distinction between moral and non-moral responses to human misaction is the distinction between those acting in error despite trying in good faith to do the right thing, and those acting in error because they are cynically and deliberately trying to do the wrong thing.
Since moral relativism breaks down as being a contradictory concept, this video is describing what are pragmatic social contracts (i feel my subconscious hating what I've written).
We get the best outcome when we employ both the moralist's and the technologist's approaches.
Every decision, if it's worth bothering about, at all, is a moral struggle.
Yeah this is what I didn’t get about what he was saying. Wanting to develop improved food technologies to better feed the world is…uh… a moral act.
I think there is another way to redefine it (more on the moral part). Regarding the big question: "what moral framework should we use" (Gods nature, promoting wellbeing, preserving oneself, ..)
One could view these as relative moral frameworks. But, in analogy to what Pinker states, a part of that may not be a moral question. But just a factual analyses of our world: what CAN humans think of, what DO they think of,.. for moral frameworks and how do systems like that spread succesfully through populations...
Concrete pragmatic thinking not dulled by moralistic rhetoric. I love it!
Pragmatism/preventative methods vs. regulation/punishments.
there is a big problem i, terms of defining moral relativity, the one that Steven pinker is talking about is the accurate one while the other is "relative" to an individual or a group which by definition is not relative because it's just a small instance of relativity that concerns an individual or a group, moral relativity means there no absolute one simply put, which also means that there no absolutes like bad and good or helpful and unhelpful or greedy and humble... (sorry im maybe using the wrong words) but each value has its opposite in the spectrum and everybody is somewhere in between
Keeping aside the fact that this video does not say anything on Moral Relativism as in its title, there is a major flaw in Pinker's argument. He ultimately admits that amoral solutions have to be implemented through policy-makers and such which is in itself a political decision, and thus some degree of morality is always involved. No matter how ingenious the doctors or engineers or designers are, there is no "amoral" solution to any practical problem since any solution has to be implemented to work and the decision of implementation always has some moral underpinning.
Saumitra Chakravarty I don't think Pinker would disagree with your statement that some degree of morality is always involved. It seems from the video that he even regards the saving of the patients life to be a "highly moral outcome". But notice how Pinker sometimes uses the word "moralistic" instead of the word 'moral'. For example, he says "I think a lot of improvement in the human condition has come about through non-moralistic improvement." Non-moralistic is not the same thing as amoral. I think what he means by "moralistic solutions" are solutions that focus on enacting justice, or retribution, or the fostering higher ethical principals among society.
0:56 you can do both? I don’t understand the dichotomy. You can punish bad doctors and also redesign equipment.
For number three, it's basically what he said about Norman: that because he wasn't a civil-rights activist for example, he isn't as well-known even though his contributions vastly bettered the human experience for many people. People tend to think of moral actions in the vein of "pursuing justice", punishing people, changing laws...a more political view....doctors who make cures create great moral good, but people don't tend to think like that/
But no action with moral goals is amoral isn't it? I don't get Pinker belief system at all. For me coming up with better strategies to improve our moral goals is a moral based action. I really want to know if I misunderstood him and how.
I fail to see how making the choice between retribution against carelessness and prevention of future harm does not have moral content.
who titles these?
I don't, but I find the next quote well fitting as a subset of that philosophy's ideas: «It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages» Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations
0:27 Problem is: who defines what is “improved life”?
Someone doesn’t know the definition of moral relativism
I am not an expert on the subject, but Utilitarianism may be what you mean. Also, maybe Deontology vs. Consequentialism, in ethics. Also, philosophers who hold to Determinism and also say that Free Will is an illusion don't seem to believe in retribution.
His argument is based on defining the purpose of human life as the pursuit of happiness and the avoidance of suffering; if you do something evil in the pursuit of the elimination of human suffering, you are good. Jesus disagrees, but not only Jesus - so too does Aldous Huxley, Siddhartha Gautama (o.g. Buddha), Abraham, Moses and the most remarkable writers and artists of the past, including Tolkien and Lewis and Tolstoy. Wilde said something to the effect (on his deathbed) that his pursuit of pleasure and happiness was a meaningless waste of his life.
It's so interesting to me that psychologists believe that, because they have a trivial understanding of how the human brain has been designed, they understand the purpose of existence in the first place.
A technologist could understand how a computer was built, but he would not be able to tell you if it had been intended to watch porn or to allow a person to connect with a group that would hep them stop watching it.
I'm very confused as to how this relates to moral relativism. I hear Pinker explaining "non-moral" solutions to problems which are actually moral solutions to problems. Whether you punish a doctor or change the IV tubing, you are still making an action that is for a moral purpose: to save more lives. The idea of moral relativism is that there is no objective morality. I've observed that Pinker has missed the point of moral relativism and is instead discussing ways to ultimately reach the goal of someone who believes in a universal moral law, the moral in this case being that it is morally right to save lives.
Maybe you design this new tubing because you think it's fun, or because you just came up with the idea and wanted some money.
brah making sure a patient can't get killed by being administered the wrong drug is by definition a moralistic improvement because you are setting up a system that insures the safety of the participants. It is moral to design the system in such a way that minimizes the possibility of human death if you are designing a system and never think about the safety of the participants but rather only the punishment of those responsible that would be immoral because you are not attempting to provide a safe system bur rather shifting the blame from the system to the individual (the punished doctor)
I think you may have misinterpreted what Pinker meant by the word "moralistic". Google defines it as "overfond of making moral judgements about others' behavior; too ready to moralize." , though you can find other definitions. I think what Pinker is arguing is that many of the best improvements in the human condition *_(Which_* *_he_* *_calls_* *_"highly_* *_moral_* *_outcomes")_* are not so much due to better policies of justice, or improvements in societal norms and ethics, but to technology and innovation. Despite sometimes being morally good, technology and innovation are not necessarily moralistic.
"bittersweet glow of having punished the careless"- we do love us some revenge!
If you redesign the valve so that it does not harm the patient, that probably involves implicitly or explicitly a moral choice. I don't understand this clip. It seems to suggest (but never quite says it) that planners and engineers don't have a moral stance when they design. That's absurd. Read Lewis Mumford, Seymour Melman and Paul Goodman for critiques of that view. What Pinker actually says is that a typical engineer is not a moral champion and that an engineer may do just as well as someone who markets their moral position. That's true. Yet, the way this video is edited lends itself to utter confusion.
Good clip but wrong title. He neither defines nor redefines moral relativism. He's talking about dispassionate evidence-based problem solving. The concept of moral relativism something else, and when he refers to "moralistic" approaches to problem solving he's not referring to that.
Superb observation!
The fact that you would snap the I v valve so it doesn't go to the wrong patient implies that it is morally wrong for the medicine to go to the patient. In other words, by solving a problem at all implies a moral incentive to solve said problem. Solution equates a moral ought.
2:08 don’t understand saying his actions weren’t “moral”. Developing new good technologies is a moral act!
1.this has nothing to do with moral relativism, he is simply arguing that things not generally considered "moral" often produce a great moral good in an objective sense. 2. His first example only applies if you believe in a retributive moral theory, which most thinking people do not3. Why wouldn't making innovations for the good of humankind be considered a moral action exactly?
Why do you assert that one solution for the doctor making a mistake is a moral one while the other is not??
I want to share a story about myself some people may find intriguing. A day that I was bored, I'm a thinker and it is when I am bored that I get into trouble with my mind- I wondered what one of the elite schools like Harvard or Princeton were like architecturally and systematically (note- I live in a conservative hick zone, so I'm always looking up). I found lectures on RUclips and wondered if I could get to see the faculty up close. I became introduced to Steven Pinker. And then that
i think even the slavery aspect is also related to technology when you see that now a facory owner has access to use machines which work massively efficient than human slaves, so now he has no motives left to enslave people.
Did this have anything to do with moral relativism?
We'd rather fix a medical machine than punish the doctor? WELL DUH....
+Trent Bell Not that the two solutions are mutually exclusive. Most functioning societies would have different groups of people working on the boards of hospitals and inventing better medical instruments.
"I find this video consistent with Moral universalism"
Indeed, Pinker has written extensively on Human universals and even extends many into the rest of animalia.
" I don't find it appropriate to say Pinker is trying to redefine moral relativism."
Is it appropriate to disregard possible sarcasm, humor or perhaps double entendre in the title or heading of media?
Plainly stated: Pinker redefined subtle boundaries within MR, not outright redefined the word. Don't take everything so literal.
I think what he is suggesting is the relative merits of morality in terms of efficacy, hence moral relativism.
Pragmatism and Utilitarianism can arguably still maintain a moralistically relevant foundation, and it often does. Despite what rational-minded individuals might wish, you are not a robot programmed towards optimal efficiency that simultaneously, yet inadvertently, attains a moralistic end. As Alan Watts would say, "it is like the tail trying to wag the dog." And despite how hard you try, you will not reprogram human evolution with a thought experiment. And if you need proof as to why you shouldn't try such a thing, ask the Soviet Union, or Cuba, or China.
Democracy was also a thought experiment. So was universal suffrage, the ending of slavery, and industrialization. These were radical changes over what existed before. You can't generalize like that
As before, people I think tend to look at activists, law-makers.... people who fight with words and desire sociopolitical change as moralistic...the scientist or engineer who actually designs something to better people's lives aren't usually seen as such, even though, as Pinker described, more good change very often is brought by perhaps more 'rational' thinking then distinctly trying to "pursue justice".
Sad wrong title...
What he is deliberately forgets that all scientific revolutions were the direct result of a moral revolution, for example, the Industrial Revolution was a direct result of the ideas of the of the Enlightenment and the increase in freedom of thought and expression
This was wonderful, but does not reflect title though
In safety engineering we call that Administrative Controls, not "moralistic solutions." For a linguist, he sure uses the word "moral" in a strange way.
Joseph Martin Pinker is clearly saying that the technological improvement in the IV drip is NOT a moralistic solution. You interpreted him as saying the opposite of what he said. I know it was five years ago, but just thought I'd point that out.
Perhaps it's the same old rift that science is "cold and immoral", even though it often does more good then distinctly moral-driven actions...these old stereotypes probably have a lot to do with why people tend to think this way.
My candidate would be Lincoln who was moral without being moralistic.
I am not saying you are a communist. BTW I am not an american, I am Scandinavian and I once used to find myself quite on the political red side. Not any more, though. But I find it intriguing that the new atheists share so many of the ideas of the communists. Hitchens was a marxist, and the arrogance, the elitism and the need to belittle the religious people are exactly as that of the old communists. As before, they seem not to even want to take notice of what history has taught mankind.
Religion like all philosophies,Is the invention of man Flawed and Imperfect Subject to amendment,Revision and subject to the will who would use to there own ends,Religion should hold no Special Place in society it should be Subject to scrutiny and Ridicule if People think it necessary, Religious People have a hard Time Separating the Self from there Religion, Mr Hitchens attacked Religion not the Person Practising that Religion
People in the comments here have to realize he probably wasn't asked or indeed tried to answer anything about Moral Relativism, some of the videos on this chanel are just very poorly titled.
Poorly titled, nice little talk.
Thanks so much
Golden Rule is the parameter.
The solution he suggests in the examples is a moral solution to 'save more lives'. What a tit to miss something so obvious.
He never said it’s not a moral solution, said it’s not a “moralistic” solution. He even called it a “highly moral outcome”. What a tit you are to miss something so obvious.
big think is not thinking big at all by inappropriate titling the video
Pinker speaks of moral relativism not in the sense of different morals but in the sense of moral relevance. Something can be moral because of the context in which it is used, E.g. a light bulb.
You fucked up the transcript guys!
If relativism is true and that anything goes, which means everything goes then absolute truth is included.
How did he redefine moral relativism? This title is stupid.
What!? His tacit support for "saving lives" is entirely moralistic. Whether the motivation is moral or otherwise, I think the operative word is 'incentive'.
No such thing Sin is sin We still have the 10 commandments in 2020
is incest wrong if the man or his mother was sterile? why?
woa, you suppose that killing patients is a bad thing lol..... to save more lives rather than loosing more lives is common sense, but its an example of objective morals.
Joshua Hults Just because something is subjectively bad doesn't mean it's objectively bad. You didn't provide a single piece of evidence that it's "an example of objective morals" as opposed to an example of subjective morals. I'm not saying that morality is subjective. I'm just pointing out the fact that you provided no reason to think that it's objective, so I don't really get the point of your comment.
But isn't it the case that solving problems practically is actually extremely moralistic? I mean if morality is relative, than solving a problem isn't actually better than not solving the problem (or even creating a problem). absolute right and wrong doesn't exist in the eyes of a moral relativist, because to them there is no substance to morality. They believe morality is completely detached from the objective world and therefor baseless. They believe we just make it up out of thin air as if real life experiences and nature have nothing to do with it. So who decides that a doctor killing a patiënt is a problem in the first place? to each their own? the majority? What if the majority becomes genocidal? Is that just right for that specific society at that specific time? the existence of moral dilemma's doesn't prove moral relativism, just like lack of evidence doesn't debunk the scientific method.
If A and B share some properties, it doesn't declare them the same. It hinges on the sameness, overall. And, my testimony is mine, not yours. Saying I'm communist also does not carry with it a point. Implications only work when they don't only make sense in your world broken off from reality. Communism in fact is a good idea, therefor if you had meant to imply it wasn't, thus comparing me to its negativity, you are quite mistaken..
What a bizarre conclution.
Oh, I think it is; might it be the accent which is distracting you?
A nice introduction to A’ Level Design & Technology. But not really challenging Moral Relativism.
Wonderful
yeah man I'm going to listen to epstein's mate for morality issues.
He claims to be a moral relativist... meaning that there is no real right and wrong... But you are presupposing that people suffering and dying due to carelessness or selfishness, ect is not right and therefore wrong.
+2 Edged Words Moral Relativism doesn't have to do with no real right or wrong. It has to do with the fact that morals are changing, subjective, and particular. Like for example, culture. Cultures all have different views of what is right and what is wrong, and a moral relativist respects culture's different views of morals.
Your Host Edge There's no contradiction unless you can show that Pinker's presupposing that it's OBJECTIVELY wrong, as opposed to concluding that it's subjectively wrong for most people in society.
It's funny and alarming to see so many people upvote such naive and ignorant comments on this video and subject. I believe it highlights a critical misunderstanding of what moral relativism is or how far it reaches into subtle day to day happenings. It's a shame, really, that such people who would otherwise be very intelligent and receptive would consider their understanding worthy of basing an opinion on.
Opinions are like assholes. Make sure you wipe and clean yours before presenting it.
he might have a point but he doesnt know how to make it lol
2:35 ...yeah there is also a role for the immoral dangerous man.
bittersweet glow? um oaky lmao
I find it logict falicy to say you can be good without God. Here's why. We understand from a Biblical worldview that God is all good and nothing can invoke change in God because He is absolute. No relativists will try to say that nothing can be absolute. This itself is logical fallicy because it is an absolute statement. So if any relating says nothing can be absolute then ask them, "Are you absolutely sure?" You quickly see why realitvist logic is illogical. Back to my point. It is common sense that how we judge the world is based upon our presupposments made upon a subject or matter. When we look at a rock we already know it's a rock because its their and we can feel and touch it. So it is obvious that when we judge things we have a basis for which we judge things. Absolute morality is the point made by Christians. We say that God has created a moral absolute and He never changes and has no contradictions of Himself or His Word. So in conclusion we say that God's standard of morality is absolute. It would make sense to say so because it would only make sense if any type of absolute morality is given by God or a higher power of some kind. Only God can deliver moral judgement. For He made morals according to His Will. What God says is good is good. The reason only God can deliver absolute morality is because He is the only one who can enforce it. He is the only being that can tell if something is absolutely wrong because He is absolute. It would only make sense also to say that only a lawgiver that is capable of enforcing his law could give that law. By what athoiurity does a man have to make something moral? The answer is none. For the man himself is not absolute. So he can't give an absolute moral law. Only a power like God can because only he can enforce it. Now a man can be good but not I is own judgement of morals. But it makes no sense to say he is good if there is no absolute. For if I came along and said well you thinks its right but I don't. If I day murder is wrong and you don't then we come to an impasse. It makes no sense to say a man can make moral absolutes when he doesn't have the authority. And also its not possible for a man to be moral unless he knows God or at least the moral understanding of God. For if we are animals as naturalists say then we all have a driven nature for self-centeredness and selfishness so why would any man care about the happiness of another human being. Why do I care whether or not my neighbor is happy? It's because I see Him as the same worth as myself and so I care about his happiness. But if I'm an ankamls then I shouldn't and wouldn't care. So you see that without God their is no way to determine good or innocent on the basis of consensus judgement. It's logical falisy. For men's viewpoints will conflict for the gain of themselves. People will be selfish at their own beneift is they are just animals. So today a man can be good without any knowledge not God or His morals is foolish and stupid. A man needs a deriect authority to tell him what is truly right and what is truly wrong. Now a man might say men can create their own morality that aligns with God's over time. But that is contradicting because it is an arguement based in the assumption that it has a basis. For if early man was starting to become moral then what eoufl he base it on? We understand that things like murder and theft have negative consequences to a society but its not realities to any animal. You don't see lions caring when the hyena's come and steal the kill. They try to fight them off and if they can't then they run off and try to hunt them down later if the must for the sake of their own survival. And also a man can't start to think about the concept of any form of society without the idea of philosophy. A being must understand himself and his actions to be able to think about the moral laws and consequences his actions might cause. So an animals with this concept needs two things. He needs a sense of selflessness. Because society is based on the idea of creating good for the whole. And he needs an understanding of his actions and his own life. But no animal at all has this concept. Animals are born with a selfish nature that they use whatever natrue gave them to benefit themselves. Animals are never greatful and they don't love. They reveal affection and care sue to conditioning or the understanding of reward for compliance. An pet the listens understands that if it acts this way it receives a reward. So any form of compliance shown by animals is based on selfishness. Thisnis why aniamls can't and don't form society. They may form groups understanding the concept of strength in numbers because they understood their physical limitations and their minds are hardwired for their behavior. So you see it is impossible for any animal of man to be the source of morality. It must be an authoritative power that is capable of enforcing His will and laws if need be. It has to be God that creates morality. Morality is based on the idea of selflessness not selfishness. I hope I could make that point clear hear. Have a good day all and God bless. Amen
Joshua Williams You seem to be misunderstanding moral absolutism with just plain old absolutism. A moral relativists saying "there are no moral absolutes" is not contradictory because they are not stating that "there are no absolutes." Saying "there are no absolutes" would be contradictory because that statement would then not be absolute, so I agree with you there.
I strongly disagree with your points about god. I do not believe in god and therefore I do not believe that god created moral absolutes. If god created moral absolutes and he is all powerful, than he is either not all powerful or has not created moral absolutes because why would he allow for Hitler to come into being? If he is all powerful he could have prevented Hitler from doing what he did, or god does not think murder is bad. The next possibility is that god does not care or that he is not all powerful.
If what god does is good, than what comes first: Good or god? If what is good is anything and everything that god does, than doesn't the concept of good exist before god?
The idea that people cannot do good things while being an atheist is a stupid one. It seems that some of the most atrocious behavior done by humans were somehow allowed by a belief in god. Wars have been waged between people of differing religions. Virtually all suicide bombers do this action because of a belief in god. Atheists do things based off of a belief in humanity. They understand that murder is wrong because it feels wrong to kill another person, biologically speaking, killing a human being is wrong and against our nature, and because of our capacities to have empathy and compassion for other people.
The idea that people need to believe in god in order to prevent them from doing bad things is absurd, as if that is the only thing preventing a person from killing another person.
hahahaha agreed with you, some people are just dumb
His analogies on morality are nonsense.
Does not sound good at all. Those horsemen you talk about are shallow, bigoted, intolerant and self-absorbed, giving simple answers to people who are easily led. Their followers are mostly young and naive.
This sounds like a great argument for the altruistic nature of capitalism.
If I make you something to improve your life, I'll be able to sell it to you and become rich, therefore I will make and advance technology to improve your life.
i wonder how much these babblegabbers get paid
Non-sequitur. That had no bearing on my experience. And I doubt you're accuracy.
weird
Does not know about hospitals, IV and drugs and surgeons are all Deadly. Call a Hospice.Pfft
Engineers can only solve a problem once it has been categorized by someone who has decided it`s a problem . How a problem is solved is not the same as why a problem is solved , or even whether it is a problem at all.
Talk about giving an obvious answer and to non problem.
I hate moral relativism.
I know. It's because, like many people, you can't think. All you can do is receive rules and then insist on them (relativism = bad).
You didn't get it. What I said is a relativistic statement =P
John Harrington Why did you get passive aggressive right there?
Obviously Steven has no idea how drugs are distributed in a an emergency room or broader hospital setting. Often time drugs come in pill form. Manufacturers try to differentiate drugs by different colors and perhaps sizes, but there is only some much they can do. Drugs injected intravenously have the same appearance and viscosity of many other drugs. How would you design IV valves for individual patients? Anesthesiologists go to school for a long time to study drugs and dosages, so to suggest such a simple fix is really condescending and a total waste of time.
I doubt he means designing IV valves for individual patients. Designing them for individual drugs, is probably what he means.
He strikes me as the kind of man who would ask someone who broke into his house and was raping his wife if he would like something cold to drink.
Or as someone who would ask why that man raped his wife, was he simply a psychopath, was he himself abused as a child, or poor, or in desperate need for a lay? Might we be able to alleviate some of these triggers by reducing poverty, or legalizing and reducing the cost of prostitutes, whilst increasing their availability, or inventing rape dolls/robots that cry and struggle when you beat/rape them, so someone could satisfy their deviant sexual urges by taking them out on inanimate objects, without hurting anyone.
***** Neither, I was speaking for Pinker, not for myself. At this point/time, I'm more likely to be the rapist rather than the victim's boyfriend, so it's difficult for me to imagine what it would be like to be faced with that particular moral dilemma. I suppose if it was my mother being raped, I'd probably stop the guy, but I am so emotionally and ethically bankrupt, it's difficult for me to say.
Michelangelo Caravaggio"Probably"?
***** Yes, I would stop the guy by any means necessary, it's just that I'm so dead inside right now, I hardly care about my own existence, let alone anyone else's, but all this is becoming too personal and off topic. It does help to illustrate a broader point though, about how our emotional state, can have an impact on our moral decision making, we ask our feelings for input on morality, and since feelings and moods are dynamic, we can give different responses to the same conundrums at different times, or are response time can be slowed, distorted.
Michelangelo Caravaggio In any case, there was a point to my original comment, which is that Pinker and people like him would like to claim the moral high-ground in distancing themselves from petty, vulgar ideas like benevolent sentiment, swift justice, and vengeance. But those ideas are the core of morality. In contrast, his ideas of morality are artificial and without power. My comment was one-quarter a dark joke, and three-quarters in earnest. I would guess Pinker's hypothesized fecklessness in matters of real moral decision-making are not caused by his silly ideas; I think the causality is the other way, with his constitutional inability to deal with real threats leading to the construction of an elaborate belief system in which, protected temporarily by the artificial world of the ivory tower and think tanks, emotional responses are mocked as low-brow and anachronistic.