33b.org - Find Reviews for a huge range of products. Or, Leave a review for any product you like!

From bestselling author Michael Shermer, an investigation of the evolution of morality
that is "a paragon of popularized science and philosophy" The Sun (Baltimore)

A century and a half after Darwin first proposed an "evolutionary ethics," science has begun to tackle the roots of morality. Just as evolutionary biologists study why we are hungry (to motivate us to eat) or why sex is enjoyable (to motivate us to procreate), they are now searching for the very nature of humanity.

In The Science of Good and Evil, science historian Michael Shermer explores how humans evolved from social primates to moral primates; how and why morality motivates the human animal; and how the foundation of moral principles can be built upon empirical evidence.

Along the way he explains the implications of scientific findings for fate and free will, the existence of pure good and pure evil, and the development of early moral sentiments among the first humans. As he closes the divide between science and morality, Shermer draws on stories from the Yanamamö, infamously known as the "fierce people" of the tropical rain forest, to the Stanford studies on jailers' behavior in prisons. The Science of Good and Evil is ultimately a profound look at the moral animal, belief, and the scientific pursuit of truth.

The Science of Good and Evil is the third book of a series by Michael Shermer. The first book was Why People Believe Weird Things, and the second book was How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God.

The substance of this book is discussion of morality and ethics, with view towards science to give some guidance on the origins (evolution) and function of morality. Shermer does not promote moral relativism, but something close to that in some people's minds. His main premise is that there is a general morality on almost any subject that most people would agree upon. That is, it would apply to most people, most of the time, in most circumstances.

Of course, that does mean that the desire of many people to have an absolute standard of morality may go unfulfilled, but that is expected by anyone that has given this much thought. An example is in the case of lying. Is it always bad to lie? Certainly it is for most people, most of the time, in most circumstances. However, could there be exceptions?

One of the standard examples of how it is okay to lie is when a greater harm can be avoided by lying, such as a case in World War II: Jews were hid in people's houses, so they would not be discovered and destroyed in whatever imaginative way the Nazis were using at the time. When the Nazis knocked on the door, would it have been morally right to tell the truth and reveal the presence of the Jews hidden inside?

Another example like that is the woman that is being beaten by her husband, and flees her own house, coming to yours begging for shelter. Would you allow her entry? Most of us would. What about when her husband knocks at your door asking if you'd seen her? Would you tell the truth?

These are just two examples from the questions of morality regarding truth telling (not necessarily given in the book, but the ideas behind both are in the book). The idea is that sometimes circumstances preclude the norms of morality because of a greater moral need. It would be okay to lie if the potential for harm is greater if the truth were told. This applies to many things in our lives.

Shermer does discuss the principles behind "The Golden Rule," and shows the lineage of the rule, far predating Jesus and the New Testament. It is a simple common sense way of evaluating whether something is moral or not. Shermer mentions the "ask first" policy - ask someone else how they would feel if you did a certain action, and it will help you decide whether it is moral or not. Sometimes, just thinking about asking another person will help you get the answer you are seeking (a thought experiment).

The ideas in the book, you can see, promote a morality that takes into account the human being:

"The false choice of either all bad or all good does not depict the subtleties and nuances of human behavior." - pg 82.

"One bad act does not an immoral person make." - pg 83.

In other words, there is not simply an evil person or good person, any more than there is an evil essence or good essence. Humans are just humans, and sometimes we do things that are judged as good, and sometimes we do things that are judged as evil.

As far as being good without God or gods, "would you commit robbery, rape, and murder, or would you continue being a good and moral person" if it were proven beyond any reasonable doubt there were no god? "If the answer is that you would soon turn to robbery, rape, or murder, then this is a moral indictment of your character, indicating you are not to be trusted because if, for any reason, you were to turn away from your belief in God (and most people do, at some point in their lives), your true immoral nature would emerge and we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you. If the answer is that you would continue being good and moral, then apparently you can be good without God. QED." -- pp 154, 155.

well written, provocative, great rational discussion of the things we all think we know but mostly do not think clearly about.

I was hoping for a naturalistic answer to the question "If moral inclinations simply evolved, why is anyone OBLIGATED to obey them?". I didn't get my answer. People feel lots of inclinations (hunger, desire for sex, desire for acheivement, etc.) However, if moral inclinations simply "evolved" just like all our other inclinations, then no one is under any OBLIGATION to obey them.

If you really want a solid answer to the question of what morality is and why it should be followed, check out "Relativism: Feet firmly planted in mid-air" by Greg Koukl. A solid read.

As a firm believer in the spirituality of man I still seek answers to the hard questions. I purchased this book as a small part of this quest. I was not disappointed. Michael Shermer - a former Church of Christ (same religion of my childhood) member - provides us finely constructed arguments for the basis of morality and ethics.

While I agree with the overall premise of the book, I do question the morality statements and studies that point to relative and provisional morals. For an older view of this area, I would suggest a person may want to read the classic MERE CHRISTIANITY. Knowledge may age but wisdom never does. For a more modern view, I would suggest the recently released Fingerprints of God: The Search for the Science of Spirituality.

Even though he is an atheist (or maybe agnostic) I greatly admire the author. He is a libertarian at heart who seeks to dispel the myths of our cultural histories. However, where I see a divine source, he sees biological heritage. In the end, it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree. What matters is the book has exposed me to other realms of thought and provided a richer understanding of morality structure.

I hope you find this review helpful.

Michael L. Gooch

It's like a unique approach to morality from the psychology (?) perspective as compared with e.g., philosopher Susan Neiman's "Moral Clarity". I agree with other reviewers that it's rather a philosophic analysis of good and evil although Shermer used 8 some changing grey points between pure good and pure evil. The whole book gave me a very strong impression that Shermer's view of morality is similar to the ancient Chinese philosophy, where things were defined by yin and yang, not absolutes like pure good and pure evil, and yin and yang were interchangeable (e.g., opposite views about 9/11). The Chinese morality is if I should say defined by their ancestors, i.e., thru evolution. Chinese never believed pure evil (Satan) or pure good (God). They can hardly believe or are not interested in (the western-type) spirituality, as Confucius put it when his student asked about things in the 'other' world, "Why bother to study things in the other (yin) world when you have not figured out many things in this (yang) world." That is probably the core source of culture conflict between the west and east.