4 ms·

Honestly, upon reading these two fragments: This incongruity gives rise to the perennial question: Are humans naturally good or evil? In the introduction of t

Honestly, upon reading these two fragments: This incongruity gives rise to the perennial question: Are humans naturally good or evil? In the introduction of the book, Wrangham provides his answer: both. and Ever since the Enlightenment, as religion gradually fell by the wayside, people have been trying to ground their moral compasses in another prestigious entity—science. Sadly, this hasn’t really worked. I immediately loose some respect for the author. Just assuming there is an objective definition of good and evil is so... religious? It's all about context, assumptions, models held in minds, zeitgeist, etc. I find Rutger Bregman (Humankind) much more enlightened on this issue. Imho grounding our moral compasses in science is working, as Rutger Bregman indicates. Richard Wrangham seems to think there is a one dimensional scale of evil -> good, Nazis -> 'People helping Jews hide from Nazis'. If only it were that simple, if only it were impossible to split twins and have one end up a Nazi and one helping Jews. If only the good and evil never changed over time.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Do you have any links with more background information? Am curious. It seems you are implying that maybe becoming a 'nazis' or 'helping a jew' could be genetically pre-determined. Or I might be reading your sentence more in a double negative and not catching the point.
Karellen 2y ago
If you get further down, they expand their view on Morality to be more nuanced, and something that sounds pretty reasonable. I think the core of their view is: > My view is that morality is “real” in the same way that language is real. Both can change, but still operate within certain constraints. There are rules to every language, and rules to every morality. > Saying morality isn’t real is like saying language isn’t real. And saying there is one true morality is like saying there is only one true language. There's more to it than that, so it's worth reading that whole section if you want to give the author another chance.
eternauta3k 2y ago
I stopped reading when he drew conclusions from men's lower resting heart rate. Wanted to keep reading, but I don't know what other BS is going through my filters undetected.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

Do you have any links with more background information? Am curious. It seems you are implying that maybe becoming a 'nazis' or 'helping a jew' could be genetically pre-determined. Or I might be reading your sentence more in a double negative and not catching the point.

Karellen 2y ago

If you get further down, they expand their view on Morality to be more nuanced, and something that sounds pretty reasonable. I think the core of their view is: > My view is that morality is “real” in the same way that language is real. Both can change, but still operate within certain constraints. There are rules to every language, and rules to every morality. > Saying morality isn’t real is like saying language isn’t real. And saying there is one true morality is like saying there is only one true language. There's more to it than that, so it's worth reading that whole section if you want to give the author another chance.

eternauta3k 2y ago

I stopped reading when he drew conclusions from men's lower resting heart rate. Wanted to keep reading, but I don't know what other BS is going through my filters undetected.