TRUTH & JUSTICE
Finding a Non-Moralistic Solution
  • Currently 1.9
  • 0
  • 1
  • 2

(8)
Steven Pinker
Uploaded on 11/29/2007

Description: Not all problems have to have a moralistic solution.

Transcript:

I think that one general attitude towards solving our problems is to keep in mind that not all problems have to have a moralistic solution; that often, things that improve the value of life and that, in that sense, are highly moral outcomes may not have come about through moral saber rattling, posturing, persuasion. So to be concrete, let’s say you’ve got a problem that needs to be solved. A doctor makes an error, sends the wrong drug into a patient and the patient dies. There are two ways of solving that problem. One is you could punish the doctor and have a policy that any doctor that is careless in the future will face severe penalties. That would be a kind of moralistic solution. Or you could design the IV valves so that you can’t snap together the wrong drug with the wrong patient; that no matter how careless you are, you just can’t have that bad outcome. Probably the second one is . . . will save more lives than the first. It won’t give us that bittersweet glow of having punished the careless. On the other hand, more people might be alive. I think that probably a lot of improvement in the human condition – more than we acknowledge – has come about through non-moralistic improvements than we commonly acknowledge. If you ask who saved the most lives in the past generation, one answer might be Norman Borlaug, winner of a 1970 Nobel Peace Prize – someone that no one has heard of. He’s the father of the green revolution. He devised streams of crops and methods of agriculture that are more disease resistant, more energy efficient. He probably deserves credit for savings tens, maybe hundreds of millions of lives. No one’s heard of him. Why? Because he wasn’t a moral crusader. He was a technologist; but he accomplished wonderful things. Many of the problems that we face might be solved . . . I don’t want to say all of them. There is a role for Martin Luther King and abolitionists of slavery and so on. But there is also a role, I think, for the engineer, for the scientist, for the planner, for the policy maker who figures out how people can get more of what they want given the resources that they have.

 

Recorded On: 6/13/07

 

4
2
2
Responses
SORT BY
Re: Finding a Non-Moralistic Solution
Response to Pinker’s “Finding a non-moralistic solution” on bigthink.com The development of a fool-proof method of administering medicine seems to be at odds with the conclusion of Mr Pinker’s article in this week’s N.Y.T. magazine and paradoxically, I find myself at odd with both. To sum up the arguments set forth in the article “The Moral Instinct”, a quote by Anton Chekhov “Man will become better when you show him what he is like”, suggests that human beings, learning from their mistakes, will do the right thing once they’ve understood the process whereby they do wrong. As a variant on the old Socratic “ Know Thyself”, this would entail human beings taking responsibility for their actions, which the above-mentioned non-moralistic solution – to my mind – goes against. It may be the most “cost-efficient” in terms of probable consequences but it does nothing to cause individuals to be more responsible, which is what the article suggests. On the other hand – and this is where I find myself oddly at odds with both postulates – I don’t happen to agree that human beings do learn from their mistakes. To illustrate the point let me compare the “moral” sense to something else that doesn’t really exist in the real world, but would seem to be just as necessary for survival: the healthy sense. We all have a variety of factors to consider to keep us on track for a long and healthful life. In fact we have more than enough information now that could result in a large number of people living long past their usual use-by dates. As made evident by the many ways in which we make ourselves unwell, it would appear that no matter how much we learn about our physical selves, we’re not very good (responsible?) about putting the information to use, mostly because the decisions we make (where are Mr and Ms Damasio when I need them?) are made on a pre-conscious level. Whatever attributions we make – rationalisations – are justificative, not preventive. To sum this idea up: go ahead and develop as many fool-proof ways of preventing humans from making mistakes that cause pain to others, because their “sense” of responsibility will need a whole lot more developing before they can be trusted to make non-moralistic “moral” choices.
0
0
Re: Finding a Non-Moralistic Solution
A responsible hothead's response
0
0
PAGE
1