Morality encompasses the principles and values that detail the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. It is the key tool that controls good relations among humans throughout their existence on earth. However, its key influences and determinants have created different arguments and opinions, as some argue that it is heavily influenced by passion. In contrast, others argue that it is determined by reason. This paper seeks to discuss reasoning as the overriding element in moral progress.
In the TED discussion between Pinker and Goldstein, ‘reason’ has been compared with passion in examining the real determinant of the behavioral evolution. Throughout the discussion reason has been given much credit as the main determinant of moral progress. Interestingly both sides of the argument hold almost the same convincing power. Pinker supports his stance with real facts; on the other hand, Goldstein keeps her decision with pure logic. At first, the audience may think it is a passion that influences morality, but later, they realize that it is reason that determines morals.
Pinker argue that reason is overrated and that individuals live by their bodies and emotions with only a little power of reason to rationalize feelings (Pinker 00:01:01-00:01:15). He states that the moral progress is a result of passion and that human beings are guided by feelings and would face every situation with emotions. This is refuted by Goldstein, who states that Pinker’s action to engage people to think of reason as being overrated is itself reasoning the individuals into his position, which only concedes to the potency of reasoning. This depicts reasoning as a critical tool in problem solving and decision making, which ultimately explain the human behavior. For example, Goldstein states that “No doubt, but modern anti-war movements reach back to a long chain of thinkers who had argued as to why we ought to mobilize our emotions against war.” (Goldstein 00:10:25-00:11:01) This view may evoke the question of empathy as one of the driving forces behind the activists’ actions, a point that Rebecca does not deny.
Nevertheless, Goldstein points out that empathy is a weak contributor to general behavior and morality. She outlines that empathy is biased and is often aligned with blood relations. For example, she gives an instance of Smith, who, when told will lose one hand in the next day will have difficulty in sleeping as compared to when he is assured of a safer tomorrow. The choice of reason finds its strength by explaining passion as an element that is influenced by reasoning. For example, Goldstein outlines that reason provides the drive that widens the circle of empathy. For any action to be taken by an individual, they must reason that an act is right or wrong and then vent their emotions based on that particular reasoning. She asserts this by claiming that all the humanitarian activities originated from thinkers who gave reasons why slavery and human trafficking were bad.
Additionally, the take on reasoning stems its forte from the point that self-interest and socialism combined with thinking lead to morality which ultimately consider other people’s interests. Goldstein maintains that reasoners care about their well-being and that individuals are members of a particular group of thinkers who can impact reasoning and messages (Goldstein 00:03:20-00:03:36). Thus reason is a fundamental factor that influences moral progress.
In disagreeing with Goldstein, I think reason, in a way, has contributed to the relatively decent world that people enjoy living in today, but not for the reason given in the talk. Goldstein claims that moral progress is the key factor pushing everyone towards a more decent and moral society. According to history, as Pinker puts it, people inflicted monstrous torture and aggression on one another. However, now, the scientific revolution and the error of academics have shown a more decent coexistence, and the world no longer performs such things. For instance, if 200 random people from the 21st century are taken back to the 1700s in the times before machines (Hacke 23). Their morality and behaviour will not dominate at that age. Instead, they will have to be accustomed to the new environment and adapt to it or die. They would find themselves aligning with the necessary activities and behavior in that age in order to survive. Therefore I do not see moral progress as the main reason for reduced violence and torture. Rather it is because of improved living conditions brought by the technological advancements.
The reason is a critical aspect that defines morality and sheds light on the moral progress that people enjoy its fruits in this contemporary world. It has revolutionized human thinking and behavior towards some traditional norms and customs that have ruled the world for centuries. However, as the world advances, people are beginning to witness the erosion of culture and the emergence of immoral behaviors backed by valid reasons. Therefore, such behaviors as same-sex marriage if not keenly dealt with, may expose the entire world to a moral crisis.
Works Cited
“Steve Pinker and Rebecca Newberger Goldstein: the long reach of reasoning.” You Tube, uploaded by TED, Web.
Hacke, Daniela. Women, Sex and Marriage in Early Modern Venice. Routledge, 2017.