Professor Lane with the Reverend Doctor Lex Crane
Re-publishing this review for obvious reasons. – sob89
Review – Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality
Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom
by Darcia Narvaez
W. W. Norton, 2014
Review by Bob Lane, MA
Mar 17th 2015 (Volume 19, Issue 12)
Narvaez writes, Today there is often no logical grounding for morality and therefore no need to behave morally. (249) In this interdisciplinary, well-researched, readable book she attempts to find, describe, and present arguments for that missing logical grounding with suggestions for the development of better people and better societies. The dozen chapters that comprise the book can be seen as either a paradigm shift or a sea change in moral philosophy. She advocates a care ethic based on a wide array of biological, environmental, and epigenetic factors.
Who doesn’t remember the work of Noam Chomsky in the field of linguistics and language acquisition? Chomsky taught us that there is a universal grammar and pointed as evidence to the fact that even very young children seem to have the ability to apply grammar rules that they obviously haven’t been taught. Kids know more about language than we can explain by pointing to what they have been taught. Similarly, Narvaez argues that “(1) morality emerges from biology and embodiment – our lived experience; (2) our morality is multi-dimensional and arises from our evolved brain propensities. Through epigenetics and developmental plasticity…” we grow our moral sense. (3) Cultures are malleable and can either “encourage or discourage our highest human nature.” (4) Humans can “self-author virtue and wisdom capacities” to change culture. As with language acquisition we come into world biologically prepared for the development of a moral sense.
The next talk is coming up at the Institute of Practical Philosophy at Vancouver Island University! The speaker is Evan Westre, a graduate of the VIU philosophy programme. He will give his talk “Will the Real Science Please Stand Up?” on November 12.
For more information, see IPP Events.
Dr Laura Shanner is a wonderful public speaker.
At her IPP talk on October 22, she covered a gamut of topics, from public policy to personal responsibility, and painted a picture of epidemology that showed we were unprepared in Canada for the SARS outbreaks of the early nougthies, a remnant of public health legislation that was and is often outdated.
She covered some basic terminology to explain outbreaks, epidemics and pandemics, and went over historical examples, such as the Black Plague pandemic in Europe, and more recent ones such as the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. She also gave some estimates over how large a pandemic might need to be before its ripple effect throughout a population could bring life as we know to a halt. (The answer: Initially not that large, on the order of 15-20% of people affected directly, with a much larger, secondary ripple effect that spreads out and causes much greater disruption.)
A recurring theme throughout her presentation was the need to prepare NOW, rather than having to apply some form of ‘lifeboat ethics’ at the time of a major event, when ethical choices about who might receive treatment and who might not will always result in outcomes that are far less than ideal. Lifeboat ethics are always an exercise in tragic choices, in her words.
Dr Shanner also brought home some excellent points about how our own brains get in the way of being prepared, for an array of different reasons, such as our tendency not to pay heed to probabilistic predictions, being in denial of what might happen or what is happening around us (the latter witnessed during in the Ebola outbreak), and so forth.
Since the SARS outbreak, a whole body of work has sprung up that purports to provide ethical guidelines for public health preparedness and that outlines a framework for steps to take in reaction to events. She used these a couple of specific articles to go over some examples, and these articles turn out to be available online:
- R.E.G. Upshur, “Principles for the Justification of Public Health Intervention“
- J.F. Childress et al., “Public Health Ethics: Mapping the Terrain“
The response taken by public health officials needs to be effective, proportional, necessary, infringes on individuals as little as possible and can be justified publicly (in the Childress version). Upshur’s article has a similar framework that also includes the notion of reciprocity–how health care workers can be expect to be treated in return for potentially putting their lives on the line. Upshur also specifically invokes John Sutart Mill’s harm principle to help qualify how a public health response might need be formed.
There was much, much more discussed at Dr Shanner’s IPP talk, and I cannot go into all of it here. She started out with a disclaimer that she did not want to be alarmist, but the message in the end was clear: There is a great deal of work left to be done in the public health policy arena before we can consider ourselves well prepared, not just in developing nations, but also in those places that are considered reasonably well off, such as Canada.
Dinner at Asteras on Wesley Street after the talk was equally excellent, and a lively conversation continued until almost 9 PM. Overall, a wonderful evening and one that more than lived up to the expectations of an IPP talk!
There are a couple of very interesting talks coming up at the Institute of Practical Philosophy at Vancouver Island University.
The first one is “Measles, Ebola and you: Ethics in the Age of Traveling Illnesses” by Dr. Laura Shanner on Thursday October 22nd:
The next one is “Will the Real Science Please Stand Up?” on November 12 by a graduate of the VIU philosophy programme, Evan Westre. For more information, see IPP Events.
One of our authors, Dr. Nik Richers, will be presenting at VIU in April.
More discussion on the beliefs of anti-vaxers . . . Should they have a legal duty to vaccinate? Do they have a moral duty to vaccinate?
[This is from an earlier post on Episyllogism.]
The Ethics of Belief: “A shipowner was about to send to sea an emigrant-ship. He knew that she was old, and not overwell built at the first; that she had seen many seas and climes, and often had needed repairs. Doubts had been suggested to him that possibly she was not seaworthy. These doubts preyed upon his mind, and made him unhappy; he thought that perhaps he ought to have her thoroughly overhauled and and refitted, even though this should put him at great expense. Before the ship sailed, however, he succeeded in overcoming these melancholy reflections. He said to himself that she had gone safely through so many voyages and weathered so many storms that it was idle to suppose she would not come safely home from this trip also. He would put his trust in Providence, which could hardly fail to protect all these unhappy families that were leaving their fatherland to seek for better times elsewhere. He would dismiss from his mind all ungenerous suspicions about the honesty of builders and contractors. In such ways he acquired a sincere and comfortable conviction that his vessel was thoroughly safe and seaworthy; he watched her departure with a light heart, and benevolent wishes for the success of the exiles in their strange new home that was to be; and he got his insurance-money when she went down in mid-ocean and told no tales. ”
Above is the first paragraph of a classic essay on the relationship between morality and belief. Written in 1877 it is still worth reading and thinking about as William K. Clifford argues that we have a moral responsibility to assess our beliefs. William James was spurred by this essay and took great pains to present a defense of faith. James makes a very different sort of case in The Will to Believe.