Morality and Intuition Shaping Ethics
The Primordial Fear: Is it the Bedrock of Our Ethics?
In 1924, specifically on the 28th of November, Raymond A. Dart, a professor, was preparing for a wedding reception at his home. Just then, two workers arrived with crates containing fossils from a quarry in Taung, a location roughly 200 miles southwest of Johannesburg. His wife urged him to wait, but Dart, overcome with curiosity, put aside his formal attire and eagerly opened the second crate. Inside, he found what appeared to be a primate skull, which was seemingly too large to belong to any known ape. After the wedding festivities concluded, he meticulously worked to reveal the facial features of the specimen, using his wife's knitting needle. Ultimately, he discovered human-like teeth and evidence suggesting the creature walked upright.
Subsequently, a few months later, Dart published his findings in Nature, where he introduced Australopithecus africanus. Furthermore, he proposed that Africa was the birthplace of human evolution. Indeed, this idea directly challenged the prevailing theories that favoured Europe or Asia. These theories, moreover, were often influenced by racial biases and supported by the fraudulent "Piltdown Man" fossils discovered near London in 1912. Consequently, scientific authorities largely dismissed Dart's discoveries as outlandish.
Dart's Theory of Human Evolution: From Australopithecus to Savage Predators
Over the following decades, Dart's theory gained acceptance. Additional Australopithecus remains surfaced throughout Africa, and the Piltdown fossils were exposed as a deliberate hoax. In the meantime, Dart developed further theories based on animal remains found alongside the original Taung Child specimen and similar Australopithecus discoveries near Pretoria. He concluded that these early humans were fierce hunters. Indeed, they supposedly used bones as weapons.
"Our ancestors were different from modern apes, because they were established killers," Dart stated, portraying them as savage predators.
The Shifting Sands of Scientific Understanding
However, Dart's narrative, which was based on hunting, while influential, proved to be incorrect. Currently, science dates the Taung Child to approximately three million years ago. Moreover, evidence suggests that the creature was actually killed by aerial predators, along with other animals in the area. What's more, the Makapansgat bone accumulations were likely left by large carnivores, who occasionally preyed on early humans. Therefore, rather than being fearsome hunters, it appears our ancestors were primarily prey, and consequently, they developed their intelligence to survive.
So, what does this prehistoric reality mean for us today, especially given that apex predators are facing extinction and meat is conveniently packaged in supermarkets? Kurt Gray, the director of the Deepest Beliefs Lab at UNC Chapel Hill, suggests in his book, Outraged: Why We Fight About Morality and Politics and How to Find Common Ground, that these ancient struggles are still relevant. Despite technological progress, Gray argues that "our thoughts and feelings come from minds that evolved eons ago."
Moral Judgements: A Singular Root?
As a moral psychologist, Gray studies how people actually make ethical judgments. In contrast, he does not search for abstract ethical principles. For almost twenty years, moral-foundations theory (MFT) has been the dominant force in moral psychology. This theory proposes that multiple innate "modules" govern ethical decisions. These modules include empathy, fairness, respect for authority, concerns about sanctity, and reactions to betrayal. MFT suggests that political differences arise because liberals primarily use fairness/empathy modules. However, conservatives are thought to utilise the full spectrum.
Gray challenges this framework. He argues that a single foundation underlies all our ethical judgements. Furthermore, he proposes that our moral judgments stem from one overriding emotion: fear. Countless generations spent avoiding predators have ingrained fear into our genetic makeup, making us extremely sensitive to potential threats.
"To understand what someone considers wrong, you need to figure out what they perceive as harmful," Gray argues. "Everyone shares a harm-based moral framework." Therefore, "harm serves as morality's universal key."
Moral Disagreements: Different Victims, Same Fear
Given that everyone has the same moral capacity, why do ethical disagreements occur? Gray suggests that different groups simply prioritise different potential victims. As an illustration, regarding abortion, progressives focus on the harm to "women from inadequate access to healthcare," while conservatives emphasize "fetal harm." Likewise, immigration debates reflect differing "vulnerability assumptions." In these debates, progressives worry about "innocent children escaping conflict," while conservatives highlight "victims of drug traffickers." Indeed, this pattern extends across controversial issues. For example, with transgender rights, "liberals emphasize trans women's vulnerability, while conservatives stress potential threats to other women."
Our heightened perception of threat, Gray asserts, actually increases as we become safer. "After millions of years as prey, we obsess over danger. Now that we no longer fear predators, we worry about elections, group text arguments, and PTA meetings." As a result, he believes we are constantly searching for potential sources of harm, even in situations where it is unlikely to exist.
The Case of Mark and Julie: Harmless Transgressions?
Two significant figures in Outraged are Mark and Julie, fictional siblings created by moral-foundations theorist Jonathan Haidt. Their story involves consensual, protected sexual relations during a holiday in France. They both enjoy the experience, but they agree to keep it a secret. Haidt developed this scenario to explore if people would condemn actions that cause no apparent harm.
When Haidt presented this story, along with a tale about a vegetarian eating cadaver flesh, to students at the University of Virginia, most participants deemed both scenarios immoral. However, they struggled to explain why. Haidt concluded that moral reasoning typically follows intuitive judgments, rather than preceding them. Therefore, people often feel that something is wrong before they can articulate a logical reason for their feeling.
Questioning the Primacy of Harm in Morality: Gray's Perspective and Counterarguments
These findings seem to challenge Gray's harm-centrality thesis. If people consistently condemn seemingly harmless actions, then how can harm be the "master key" to morality? Indeed, it raises questions about the foundation of his argument.
Gray responds with his own experiments, including toy gun fights and scenarios similar to Mark and Julie's (such as someone engaging in relations with supermarket poultry). He maintains that these results confirm the primacy of harm. Participants, in effect, disbelieved that truly harmless violations could exist. They assumed that shame, family discovery, or societal breakdown would inevitably follow these supposedly "harmless" transgressions. Therefore, they were always searching for potential negative consequences.
"Our intuitive minds reject the concept of harmless wrongs," Gray concludes. "Perceived harm directly correlates with perceived immorality." As a result, he believes that people will always find a way to identify potential harm in situations they deem to be immoral.
Finding Common Ground: A Bridge Over Troubled Waters?
Written during a time of extreme political division and published shortly before Donald Trump's inauguration, Outraged promises to help readers "find common ground." Gray offers advice for "bridging moral divides," starting with what to avoid. In particular, he highlights the importance of understanding how people actually respond to different types of arguments.
A key insight is that facts rarely persuade. Gray references a 2021 study where researchers debated gun control with strangers. They alternated between statistical arguments and personal anecdotes (including a fabricated story about a relative injured by stray gunfire). The recorded conversations showed that strangers receiving anecdotes engaged more willingly and respectfully than those hearing data. Consequently, personal stories were far more effective at fostering understanding and empathy.
"Sharing personal experiences instead of facts improved cross-partisan perceptions by approximately 0.7-0.9 on a seven-point scale," Gray notes. In a rather ironic move, he uses statistics to argue against the use of statistics. "While seemingly modest, this effect is quite significant." His conclusion is that "respect develops most easily through harm-based storytelling." Therefore, focusing on the human impact of issues is more likely to bridge divides than relying on data alone.
The Perilous Allure of Victimhood Narratives
Gray presents this finding optimistically. However, an alternative interpretation exists. America is already saturated with victimhood narratives, particularly from figures such as Trump. Indeed, he readily shares fabricated harm-based stories, such as his claim in September about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio: "The newcomers are consuming dogs, cats, and residents' pets." So, is the solution simply to amplify these kinds of narratives?
If increased harm-narrative sharing is not the answer, what is? The research in Outraged doesn't provide a clear solution. Ultimately, moral psychology's key insight, that intuition drives ethical judgment, suggests that we have navigated modern complexities surprisingly well using prehistoric impulses. Nonetheless, close calls occurred even before nuclear weapons, climate change, AI, and social media magnified the risks. Therefore, the defining question of our time is whether this evolutionary mismatch has finally become unsustainable.
The Limits of Intuition: Can We Outgrow Our Fears?
The pervasive influence of intuition in ethical decision-making raises fundamental questions about our capacity for rational thought. Moreover, it challenges the assumption that we can overcome our inherent biases and fears through reasoned debate and factual evidence. Consequently, if our moral compass is primarily guided by gut reactions rooted in prehistoric anxieties, the prospects for addressing complex modern challenges, such as climate change and social inequality, seem bleak.
Furthermore, the accessibility and amplification of harm-based narratives through social media may exacerbate existing societal divisions. For example, algorithms often prioritise content that evokes strong emotional responses, regardless of its veracity. Consequently, this can lead to echo chambers where individuals are constantly exposed to information that confirms their existing biases and fears, thereby reinforcing their moral intuitions.
Moreover, the rise of populist movements around the world can be seen as a manifestation of this phenomenon. Leaders often exploit people's anxieties and insecurities by constructing narratives that pit one group against another, thereby tapping into our primal instincts of fear and tribalism. As a result, reasoned discourse and evidence-based policymaking are often sidelined in favour of emotional appeals and divisive rhetoric.
The Role of Reason: A Counterbalance to Intuition?
Despite the undeniable power of intuition, it is important not to dismiss the role of reason and critical thinking in ethical decision-making. Indeed, while our initial reactions may be driven by fear or other emotions, we possess the capacity to reflect on our intuitions, evaluate their validity, and modify our judgments accordingly. Therefore, education, exposure to diverse perspectives, and the cultivation of empathy can all contribute to a more nuanced and informed ethical framework.
Moreover, the development of institutions and legal systems designed to protect individual rights and promote social justice represents a conscious effort to transcend our primal instincts and create a more equitable and just society. Furthermore, these structures provide a framework for resolving conflicts and addressing ethical dilemmas in a rational and impartial manner, even when our intuitions may lead us astray.
However, the effectiveness of these institutions depends on our willingness to uphold their principles and resist the temptation to succumb to our baser instincts. Consequently, a constant vigilance and commitment to reason are essential to safeguard against the erosion of ethical standards and the perpetuation of harmful biases.
The Spectrum of Harm: Intentionality and Moral Blame
Another crucial aspect of ethical judgment is the assessment of intentionality. While Gray argues that harm is the central determinant of morality, the degree to which an action is considered wrong often depends on whether the harm was intended or accidental. For example, accidentally causing harm to someone is generally viewed as less morally reprehensible than intentionally inflicting pain or suffering.
Furthermore, the concept of culpability plays a significant role in assigning moral blame. Factors such as mental capacity, duress, and lack of knowledge can all mitigate the degree to which an individual is held responsible for their actions. As a result, ethical judgments are often complex and nuanced, requiring careful consideration of the circumstances surrounding the harmful act.
Moreover, legal systems typically distinguish between different degrees of culpability, ranging from accidental negligence to premeditated malice. Consequently, the severity of the punishment is often determined by the level of intent and the extent of the harm caused.
Beyond the Individual: Social and Cultural Influences
Whilst individual intuition and reasoning undoubtedly shape ethical judgements, social and cultural norms exert a powerful influence. These norms, often deeply ingrained and transmitted through generations, dictate acceptable and unacceptable behaviours within a given society. Therefore, what is considered morally permissible in one culture may be deemed abhorrent in another.
Moreover, religious beliefs often play a significant role in shaping moral values and ethical codes. These beliefs provide a framework for understanding the world and defining right and wrong, thereby influencing individuals' attitudes towards a wide range of issues, from personal conduct to social justice.
However, social and cultural norms are not static. They evolve over time, influenced by factors such as technological advancements, economic changes, and social movements. Consequently, ethical standards can shift and adapt to reflect changing societal values and priorities.
Furthermore, the rise of globalisation has led to increased interaction between different cultures, challenging traditional notions of morality and prompting a re-evaluation of ethical norms. As a result, societies are grappling with complex issues such as cultural relativism and the universality of human rights.
The Problem of Moral Relativism: Are All Values Equal?
The concept of moral relativism, which suggests that moral values are relative to individual cultures or societies, poses a significant challenge to the idea of universal ethical principles. If all values are equally valid, regardless of their consequences, then it becomes difficult to condemn harmful practices such as slavery, oppression, or genocide.
However, critics of moral relativism argue that certain fundamental values, such as the right to life, liberty, and equality, are essential for human flourishing and should be universally recognised and protected. Consequently, they advocate for the establishment of international legal frameworks and institutions to uphold these values and hold accountable those who violate them.
Moreover, the concept of human rights, enshrined in international declarations and conventions, represents an attempt to establish a common set of ethical standards that transcend cultural differences. Furthermore, these standards provide a basis for judging the legitimacy of governments and holding them accountable for their treatment of their citizens.
The Future of Morality: Navigating a Complex World
As we navigate an increasingly complex and interconnected world, the challenges to our moral intuitions and ethical frameworks are likely to intensify. Technological advancements such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and nanotechnology raise profound ethical questions that require careful consideration and thoughtful deliberation.
Moreover, the growing awareness of global issues such as climate change, poverty, and inequality demands a renewed commitment to social justice and ethical responsibility. Furthermore, these challenges require us to transcend our individual biases and work together to create a more sustainable and equitable future for all.
Furthermore, developing a robust ethical framework that incorporates both intuitive and rational elements will be crucial for navigating the moral complexities of the 21st century. This framework should be grounded in a commitment to human rights, social justice, and environmental sustainability, while also remaining flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances and emerging challenges.
The Illusion of Control: Facing Our Evolutionary Constraints
Gray's thesis in "Outraged" compels us to confront a humbling reality: our ethical choices are less rational and more instinctive than we typically believe. While reason and deliberation undoubtedly play a role, our primal fears and biases, honed over millennia of evolutionary struggle, exert a profound influence on our moral judgments. Consequently, this realisation should foster a degree of humility and caution when engaging in ethical debates.
Furthermore, the knowledge that different groups often prioritise different potential victims can help us to understand and appreciate the perspectives of those with whom we disagree. By recognising that our moral intuitions are shaped by our own unique experiences and vulnerabilities, we can cultivate empathy and bridge divides.
Moreover, acknowledging the power of harm-based narratives should prompt us to be more critical consumers of information. We should be wary of appeals to fear and victimisation, particularly those that are used to justify prejudice or violence. Furthermore, seeking out diverse perspectives and engaging in constructive dialogue can help us to challenge our own biases and develop a more nuanced understanding of complex ethical issues.
Cultivating Ethical Awareness: A Lifelong Journey
Ultimately, ethical decision-making is not a destination but a continuous journey. It requires constant self-reflection, critical thinking, and a willingness to challenge our own assumptions. Moreover, it necessitates engaging with diverse perspectives, cultivating empathy, and striving to create a more just and equitable world.
Furthermore, education plays a vital role in fostering ethical awareness and developing the skills necessary to navigate complex moral dilemmas. Schools, universities, and other educational institutions should provide opportunities for students to explore ethical theories, analyse case studies, and engage in discussions about contemporary ethical challenges.
Moreover, ethical leadership is essential for promoting ethical behaviour in organisations and communities. Leaders should model integrity, transparency, and accountability, and create a culture that values ethical decision-making. Furthermore, they should be willing to challenge unethical behaviour and hold individuals accountable for their actions.
Conclusion: Embracing Our Humanity, Imperfect Though It May Be
In conclusion, while Gray's focus on fear as a primary driver of moral decisions might seem reductive, it offers a valuable lens through which to examine the roots of ethical disagreement. His work highlights the limitations of pure rationality in ethical debates and underscores the power of deeply ingrained intuitions. Moreover, understanding these primal forces can, paradoxically, empower us to engage in more constructive dialogue and strive for a more compassionate and just society.
Despite the daunting challenges that lie ahead, we should not despair. Our capacity for reason, empathy, and cooperation offers a glimmer of hope. By embracing our humanity, with all its imperfections and contradictions, we can strive to create a world where ethical considerations guide our actions and where the well-being of all individuals is valued and protected. Ultimately, the future of morality depends on our collective commitment to building a society that is both just and compassionate.
