Summary Of The Book "Moral Tribes"

Key points in this book:

1. Self-interest or a group's own sense of morality frequently impair group cooperation.
2. The dilemma of the prisoner provides insight into the operation of moral standards.
3. Utilitarianism recognises that we all deserve equal happiness, but it does so at the expense of people's rights.
4. There are two types of moral thinking: automatic and manual.
5. Who we help depends on how personal our connection to them feels.
6. Rights and duties are often used to justify beliefs and values, but a pragmatic approach is more informative.

 What am I getting out of it? Put your own morality into context to learn how to make better decisions.

There's a hot button topic erupting in every direction. As opponents polarise themselves, thinking that they have the moral upper hand, politics has lost its meaning.

It could, however, be different. The way we debate our moral standing is a result of humanity's evolutionary past. With a little effort and knowledge, diverse parties can quickly arrive at conclusions that will benefit society and assure everyone's satisfaction.

In the following summary, you'll discover what obstacles stand in the way of mutual understanding and what can be done to reverse this tendency.

You'll learn a lot in this summary.

• Why commonsense morality disagreements are so difficult to overcome; 
• What the prisoner's dilemma is; 
• Why does cake taste better when your mind is occupied.

Self-interest or a group's own sense of morality frequently impair group cooperation.

The world is changing at a breakneck pace, but humans remain biologically unchanged. Although evolution has given us the ability to collaborate inside groups, our ability to work between groups has yet to be fully realised. That much is clear from the history of conflict.

Many factors threaten mutually beneficial cooperation, but the tragedy of the commons is the most obvious threat.

This is sociological jargon meaning the conflict between self-interest and collective interest, or Me vs. Us/You.

Consider Art as a lone traveller in the American West. Up ahead, he notices the silhouette of another passenger at a watering hole. Art isn't sure if the visitor is armed, but he is prepared with his handguns. As their horses drink at the watering well, they meet and assess each other.

If Art is thinking selfishly, shooting Bud, the stranger, will not result in much less. For starters, there'd be no risk of Art being robbed. But, for the time being, let's assume Art decides not to shoot Bud. Bud poisons his booze with poison when Art nods asleep later. Bud, it turns out, is likewise terrified of being robbed. When Art regains consciousness, he reconsiders his decision and kills Bud. Then, unintentionally, he downs the poisoned whiskey and passes away. Neither Art nor Bud would have died if they had acted constructively rather than selfishly. The tragedy of the commons is this.

The tragedy of commonsense morality is a second challenge to mutually beneficial collaboration. It's a battle of Us vs. Them this time. To put it another way, one group compares its own values to those of another.

The narrative of the Danish political daily Jyllands-Posten is a good example of this approach. In 2005, it produced a series of satirical cartoons in reaction to an Islamic hadith prohibiting visual portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad. The prevailing atmosphere was also significant: there was continual discussion about journalists self-censoring their views on Islam.

The controversy was covered by international news outlets. Violent protests erupted quickly across the Muslim world. Hundreds of people were slain, and Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran were set ablaze.

Both the Danish journalists and the Muslims were battling for what they perceived as common-sense morality. Journalists despised being restricted, but Muslims did not want their faith to be mocked. However, the eventual effect was strife. This is an example of how common sense morals can result in catastrophe.

The dilemma of the prisoner provides insight into the operation of moral standards.

When it comes to morality, a well-known thought experiment is frequently cited. The situation is known as the prisoner's dilemma. We'll have to go back to our pals Art and Bud to explain it.

Art and Bud have partnered up this time and have begun robbing banks together. The sheriff eventually apprehends them, but he lacks sufficient proof to charge them with the crime. The sheriff must wheedle a confession from them in order to secure substantial convictions. So the heisters are separated and given a moral dilemma: if Art confesses but Bud does not, Art receives a one-year sentence while Bud receives a ten-year prison, and vice versa. If they both confess, though, they will each receive an eight-year term. What happens if they remain silent? That's two years for each of them.

This raises the question of which moral standards guide Art and Bud's choices.

To begin with, their decisions are most likely influenced by their relationship.

If Art and Bud were brothers, they'd be much less likely to confess and therefore betray one another.

Similarly, if they thought they could have a prosperous future as bank robbers, keeping silent would be beneficial to both of them.

If the two strangers didn't care about each other, though, they'd be far more likely to confess. After all, instead of a two-year or ten-year term, they'd each get a one-year or eight-year sentence.

Whatever the other does, if they choose to confess, the end result is better for both of them. As a result, the most likely outcome is that they will each be sentenced to eight years in prison.

Another aspect that could influence the decision-making process is the possibility of future consequences.

For example, if Bud confesses, Art may threaten him with death. Intimidation, on the other hand, isn't always the greatest technique. Art would have to wait ten years in this case before he could get his hands on Bud. Murder is, after all, a dangerous business.

Imagine the two as members of the League of Tight-Lipped Bank Robbers, a cartel. Each participant swears to follow a tight code of silence. If one refuses to cooperate, the others will retaliate violently. Art and Bud will not be singing anytime soon in this scenario.

Utilitarianism recognises that we all deserve equal happiness, but it does so at the expense of people's rights.

Why did you go to work today, you might wonder? Probably for the sake of your income. And why do you require the funds? For food. What about the food? It's because you want to continue living. And what is the point of living? So you can be pleased while spending time with your friends and family. Whatever the exact sequence is, you'll come to know that happiness is what matters in the end.

Utilitarianism can help you in this situation. Happiness, according to the concept, is the most significant consideration while making moral decisions.

Let's look at another well-known thought experiment, the footbridge issue, to further comprehend this.

Consider a train carriage careening out of control toward a group of five railway workers. They will be killed if they are struck. You're standing on a footbridge with a view of the railroad lines. A man with a heavy backpack stands next to you. You know that throwing this heavily loaded man onto the tracks below is the only way to save the five workers. This would instantly kill him, but it would also halt the waggon and save the workers. Is it therefore moral to push the man off the bridge?

You're going to have to give him a shove if you want to follow utilitarian principles. Because each life is equal, this will result in the five being happier at the expense of one.

When we reenact the footbridge dilemma, it's evident that utilitarianism has a problem: it clearly places little importance on individual rights.

This is because utilitarians believe that ignoring an individual's happiness is acceptable if the end result is increased overall happiness.

Consider the following scenario: you live in a civilization where a minority of the population is enslaved. If the majority is content with the current situation, their overall happiness exceeds that of the enslaved minority. That's good in terms of utilitarianism, but it's extremely morally problematic.

Slavery brings wealth to some, but it brings terrible suffering to others. When we consider the advantages and disadvantages, it's evident that the moral disadvantages should not be overlooked. You can't merely compare one to the other.

If we utilise utilitarianism to make moral decisions, we must remember that individuals have inherent rights. These rights should not be rejected simply because a majority group's happiness is quantifiably greater.

There are two types of moral thinking: automatic and manual.

The contemporary camera is a technological marvel. A photographer can utilise either the automated point-and-shoot mode or the manual setting to gain more control over the final result. It's a good comparison for moral reasoning, which has two modes as well: automatic and manual.

In a 1999 experiment, researchers Baba Shiv and Alexander Fedorikhin demonstrated this. Participants in the study were instructed to memorise a number, walk down a hallway, and tell the number to a tester.

Half of the participants had to memorise a two-digit number, while the other half had to memorise a seven-digit number. Clearly, the second group faced a more difficult cognitive challenge.

Subjects were asked to choose between a healthy piece of fruit or a slice of rich chocolate cake as a snack in the corridor.

Those with a higher cognitive load were shown to be 50% more inclined to choose the chocolate cake.

Because they were in automated mode, this happened. In other words, intuition and emotion directed them.

Our default mode is just concerned with what we can have right now. The luscious allure of cake was difficult to resist in this circumstance. Our automatic mode is made up of a collection of responses influenced by genes, cultural experiences, and trial and error.

Manual mode, on the other hand, functions in a different way. Reasoning and thinking play an important role in it.

The controlled manual method considers both immediate and long-term advantages. As a result, in Shiv and Fedorikhin's study, participants with lower cognitive demands were reminded that the fruit was better for them.

The takeaway here is simple: automatic thinking leads to more errors, but it also allows for quicker decision-making without taxing the conscious mind. When the manual mode is busy, the automatic mode is a fallback alternative, as we witnessed with the participants who had to recall seven digits.

Who we help depends on how personal our connection to them feels.

Imagine yourself wandering across a park clothed in $500 attire. You come upon a child who is drowning in a pond. Theoretically, plunging in to save the child's life would be simple enough, but you'd ruin your clothes in the process. Of course, that isn't a true decision; you would always choose the child above your clothes.

The underlying question is why is spending so much money on a suit morally permissible in the first place. Consider how that money could have been put to good use by a charity, saving many more children.

When it comes to empathy, the dynamics are very similar. It turns out that two elements influence the strength of empathy: physical distance and personal connection.

To learn more about this association, the author and his colleague Jay Musen conducted an experiment. Participants were asked to imagine two different scenarios.

In the first, participants were instructed to envision themselves vacationing in a country and being caught in a devastating storm. In the second, the participants imagined having a buddy present who could provide them with a live audio-visual broadcast of the aftermath. Only 34% of those who imagined themselves as being physically present indicated they felt obligated to help, compared to 68 per cent of those who watched the live video.

In real-life situations, similar behaviour can be observed. An 18-month-old daughter, for example, fell down a well in Texas in 1987. She had been trapped for about 60 hours. Her family got more than $700,000 from strangers to help in the rescue effort. Fortunately, emergency personnel were able to save the toddler.

What's more remarkable is that the money provided may have saved thousands of lives in developing countries. So, why was it just offered for this reason?

We feel obligated to help because of our fear and guilt, but only if we have a personal connection to the issue. Even strangers felt a connection to the girl below the well.

Even though the crisis is larger in scope, when our ties to the event are weaker, we feel less inclined to act because we feel more distant.

Rights and duties are often used to justify beliefs and values, but a pragmatic approach is more informative.

The topic of abortion is one of the most divisive issues in the world today.

In general, pro-choice and pro-life proponents defend their positions by examining rights and responsibilities.

Pro-choicers see abortion as a part of women's rights; after all, they should be entitled to choose what happens to their bodies.

Pro-lifers, on the other hand, profess to oppose abortion because it is their responsibility to safeguard all life.

As a result, these two arguments are based on two fundamentally different conceptions. As a result, the only point of agreement they can reach is the question of when life begins in the first place.

Pro-life arguments emphasise the potential of the human life that is lost via abortion. Most pro-lifers believe that a person's life begins at conception, when sperm and egg combine.

Pro-choicers, on the other hand, don’t believe life begins at conception, but rather when a foetus has basic consciousness, meaning they have an awareness of their body and can feel pain. But focusing on when life begins does not actually answer the question of why exactly is or isn't early-term abortion morally justified?

In this scenario, utilitarianism can provide a practical solution to the problem.

Instead of pondering when life begins, we should consider moral issues. Would prohibit abortion, for example, have a beneficial or bad impact on society as a whole?

What would happen if abortions were made illegal? Despite the fact that sexual activity is a pleasurable part of life, it is possible that people's sexual behaviour would change. Additionally, some women may seek illegal abortions or travel abroad to obtain them, which could be perilous. Finally, some mothers may give birth to babies for whom they are unable to provide adequate care, either emotionally or financially.

Meanwhile, if abortions were prohibited, more kids would be born. They may also experience happiness, so enhancing global happiness. Shouldn't we also prohibit contraception and abstinence, which also prevent infants from being born, on the same grounds? Wouldn't it be a moral imperative for adults to produce as many happy children as possible? This appears to be an unreasonable request.

One could also claim that the ability to have abortions leads to an increase in dangerous sex, such as among teenagers who are not yet ready. However, it's unclear if prohibiting abortions would truly reduce the quantity of unsafe sex, because youths who are more mature and aware of their options are also more inclined to engage in sexual activity.

Based on this logic, pro-choicers appear to have far better arguments for their position, as the possibility of legal abortion increases society's overall happiness.

Whether it's about abortion, legislation, taxation, healthcare, capital punishment, marriage equality, gun control, or immigration regulations, major issues like these rage all around us. Even in these difficult arguments, a deeper knowledge of moral psychology can help us forward.

The most important message in this summary is that humanity's morality is based on evolution and cultural experiences. We frequently react to situations in our environment without giving them much thought. When it comes to moral difficulties, though, this isn't the greatest approach. Prioritizing our own interests frequently results in lower outcomes than cooperating, as well as the tragedy of the commons. This is why, especially when dealing with disputed and consequential issues, thorough moral reasoning is required.

Actionable advice: Face your ignorance head-on and urge others to do so as well.

Moral issues in the actual world, such as global warming and the healthcare system, are extremely complex. Despite this, even if they don't understand the basics, people typically have strong opinions about these topics. Perhaps you are one of them. Force yourself to defend why you disagree with a policy, and if you can't, acknowledge your lack of knowledge on the subject. As a result, you may find yourself more sensitive to other people's viewpoints.

#books #bookstagram #book #booklover #reading #bookworm #bookstagrammer #read #bookish #booknerd #bookaddict #booksofinstagram #bibliophile #love #instabook #bookshelf #bookaholic #booksbooksbooks #readersofinstagram #libros #reader #bookphotography #booklove #b #art #author #instabooks #literature #libri #bhfyp

#writer #bookcommunity #bookblogger #quotes #bookreview #library #livros #writing #novel #poetry #writersofinstagram #igreads #libro #readingtime #bookstore #bookclub #romance #goodreads #instagood #fantasy #literatura #instagram #fiction #photography #authorsofinstagram #a #bookobsessed #kindle #life #leggere