Joshua Greene is a psychology professor at Harvard, studying moral judgement and decision making and its link to neuroscience. His book Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them looks at why people differ so wildly in their approach to how society should be organised, why debate often descends into insult, and asks what we might do to try to encourage more constructive dialogue.
I was reminded of the book, first published in 2013, while reflecting on the fractious state of public debate, especially around politics and society, that I believe currently exists in the UK and the USA. A quick look at Prime Minister’s Questions any week demonstrates an adversarial approach with little scope for nuance or for listening. Coupled with a reduction in concern for accuracy, dialogue descends into shouting slogans. Greene’s book asks why this happens and what can be done differently.
Differing moral tribes
Greene starts with a section called the ‘Parable of the Commons’. In this parable a region of land is divided amongst various tribes who all regulate their approach to allocation of resources among individuals differently, especially the extent to which some tribes promote a greater degree of personal responsibility and individualism, while others promote a more collectivist approach to distributing resources and wealth. Greene points out that all the tribes, irrespective of their chosen philosophy, want the same things: a level of security, a degree of fairness, and so on. They simply disagree on what is fair and which system of organisation best achieves this. It is easy to see parallels in the UK and USA today.
Greene goes on to talk about how we are neurologically wired to promote ‘within group’ collaboration but not so well equipped for collaboration between tribes. Greene cites substantial research demonstrating that our responses are often emotional, overriding our ability to look at issues dispassionately. As someone with somewhat left-wing views, I am wired to be receptive to kindred souls and more hostile to more right-wing viewpoints.
The perils of thinking on autopilot
In his explanation, Greene cites the psychologist Daniel Kahnemann’s book Thinking, Fast and Slow, which describes “system 1” or fast thinking, which Greene calls ‘automatic thinking’, and “system 2” thinking (which Greene terms ‘manual thinking’). Kahnemann points out that our ‘fast’ thinking mode is intuitive and emotional, as if on autopilot, influenced by our personal biases. Automatic thinking can cause us to leap to conclusions without really examining the assumptions we are taking as read. This can lead to errors in our decisions, and Kahnemann argues that sometimes we need to use the more deliberate system 2 (which Greene calls ‘manual’ mode) and to actively examine our underlying assumptions and paradigms.
In what Greene calls “the Tragedy of Common-Sense Morality”, I consider certain viewpoints to be common sense without really questioning them, if, in Kahnemann’s terms, I am thinking on autopilot. My Reform-voting relative will hold very different views on what constitutes obvious common sense, if they too think in automatic mode. Unless we can recognise our personal assumptions and have a reasoned dialogue recognising our unarticulated biases, we will not resolve our debates.
Differences in morality thought experiment
Greene illustrates moral decision-making with a famous thought experiment known as the trolley dilemma. The dilemma is whether certain actions are allowable if they involve sacrificing one life to save five others. There are two variations. In both cases, a trolley bus is out of control and will head down a track and kill five people. In one, you are a bystander on a footbridge and see that you can stop the trolley by pushing an innocent bystander off the bridge. Is that morally acceptable?
In the ‘switch’ version, instead of pushing a bystander to their death, you have the ability to press a switch which will divert the trolley via points, resulting in the death of one person in its new path. The experiment shows that the second option is far more popular with many people. The dilemma has several refinements which delve deeper into the mechanics. For example, the further away the victim is, the easier the decision becomes. In addition, we are more tolerant of omissions than actions; for example, actively assisting someone to die is less acceptable than allowing it to happen.
The trolley dilemma relates to the philosophy of utilitarianism, which Greene advocates in the rest of the book. Utilitarianism is based on the premise that if you and I can’t agree because our definitions of obvious common sense differ widely, we need a reliable method to determine what is best. Utilitarianism argues that we go with the solution that creates most overall happiness, accepting that not everyone will be equally happy. Subsequent chapters look at objections to this philosophy where Greene attempts to counter these and argue the case that utilitarianism is still the way to go.
Towards more reasoned public debate
The final section of the book asks how we can resolve our disagreements on what constitutes ‘moral common sense’. Greene doesn’t offer cast-iron solutions, but instead gives pointers toward more constructive debate.
Firstly, when we are disagreeing about ‘obvious’ moral common sense, we need to switch from automatic thinking to a considered manual mode. That involves looking honestly at whether our own assumptions are as obvious as we assume.
Greene argues that we also all need to switch to looking at facts. In the absence of data, we can go on forever arguing the point. We can only resolve such issues with a reasoned look from all sides as to what the costs and benefits are for each debate.
Linked to this we need to agree a common currency of things that all parties value to enable us to examine moral questions with a common vocabulary.
We also need awareness that we all sometimes exhibit “biased fairness”. Greene points out that our definitions of what is fair often coincide with what suits us! A good recent example is the public debate and protests over plans to introduce inheritance tax for farms over a certain value. Debate varies: those who think it’s too soft on farmers, who should have the same tax liability as everyone else, but many farmers, however, refer to it as the ‘Family Farm Tax’ and decry it. Without a common agreement on what is truly fair this is unlikely to be a constructive debate.
Finally, Greene suggests we need to be more generous in listening to alternative viewpoints.
A difficult but thought-provoking read
Moral Tribes is meticulously researched and offers pointers to how we might resolve deeply rooted differences in our society. It has helped me to be more understanding of how others can view moral questions from a very different standpoint to me. I am convinced that we certainly need some way forward.
