Rating: 
Summary: A labor of love, conviction, and humanity....
Review: Michael Shermer is one of those characters that purposefully sets himself up for an uphill battle in nearly every endeavor he undertakes. I'll state upfront that unlike him, I'm not a skeptic; however, there is a persistent and damnably unfair prejudice in American society that assumes non-believers do not experience the same joys, sorrows, and moral conundrums that the rest of humanity faces. With this gem of a book, Shermer proves that he does, and serves us all well, believers and non-believers alike.
Shermer starts off with an old Platonic question--"is what's the 'right thing to do' the 'right thing' because it's holy, or holy because it's the 'right thing'"? Shermer's cogently argued thesis is that it shouldn't matter--if morals exist, and they are universal (in some sense) for all humanity, then it should be possible to make an argument for good and evil no matter what the lenses through which we view the world--including science. From his unsettling discussions of the Yanomamo Indians to his behavioral insights from primatology and evolutionary anthropology to his urbane witticisms about the Columbine tragedy, this book is a tour-de-force of a relentless intellect seeking for a moral compass in an age of science, since the "age of faith" is no longer the only (nor even the most legitimate) source of ethics and values in our confused and complicated world. Some of these gems of wisdom even helped bolster, clarify and solidify ethical opinions that I, as a person of faith, had long held. Though I don't always see eye to eye with Shermer on several points, his prose is rigorously argued, scientifically literate, and deeply humanistic--a man of letters who proves that there lies within the chest of every critical thinker a human heart.
Rating: 
Summary: Good book, but not Shermer's best.
Review: Mike Shermer is at his best when he writes in his "Saganesque" style, explaining complex or controversial issues in a conversational manner. However, about one third of this book is a textbook style read, discussing evolutionary forces that drive "moral" behaviours, and though well painstakingly researched and well thought out, I thought it could be quite dull.
The rest of The Science of Good and Evil is enjoyable, written more in the style of " How we believe" which I thought was an excellent book. A chapter on mental illness using attempted assassin John Hinckley was very interesting, and I particularly liked the chapter on being moral without believing in God, which was very well argued. Not Shermers best, but a quick book that is worth the time if you like the subject manner.
Rating:
Summary: Evolutionary morality.
Review: Of all the differences between man and the lower animals, Charles Darwin believed that "the moral sense or conscience" is the most important. "It is the most noble of all the attributes of man," he wrote in THE DESCENT OF MAN (1871), "leading him without a moment's hesitation to risk his life for that fellow-creature; or after due deliberation, impelled simply by the deep feeling of right or duty, to sacrifice it in some great cause." Drawing from evolutionary ethics, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, anthropology, and ethology, Michael Shermer (WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS; HOW WE BELIEVE)takes on the difficult subject of the origins of morality and the foundations of ethics from an agnostic and nontheistic position, and contends that moral behavior can be scientifically traced to humanity's evolutionary origins. For those unfamiliar with his work, Shermer is the editor in chief of Skeptic magazine, and a frequent contributor to Scientific American.THE SCIENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL picks up where HOW WE BELIEVE ended, defining religion as a social institution that "evolved as an integral mechanism of human culture to create and promote myths, to encourage altruism and cooperation, to discourage selfishness and competitiveness, and to reveal the level of commitment to cooperate and reciprocate among members of a community" (p. 7). Shermer divides his book into two parts, first examining how morality evolved as a species-wide mechanism for survival to enforce the rules of human interactions before there were such things as state laws and constitutional rights, and then by disputing the religious position that without God, there can be no morality. In developing his notion of "provisional ethics," Shermer observes that some form of The Golden Rule (i.e., "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you") provides the foundation of morality in all human societies. Calling himself a "free rider" (p. 22), Shermer argues that humans don't need God to be moral, but that evolution has equipt the human brain with a tendency toward moral behavior. In other words, humans are moral by nature. "I may be free from God," he writes, "but the god of nature holds me to her temple of judgment no less than her other creations. I stand before my maker and judge not in some distant and future ethereal world, but in the reality of this world, a world inhabited not by spiritual and supernatural ephemera, but by real people whose lives are directly affected by my actions, and those actions directly affect my life" (p. 22). G. Merritt
Rating:
Summary: Evolutionary morality.
Review: Of all the differences between man and the lower animals, Charles Darwin believed that "the moral sense or conscience" is the most important. "It is the most noble of all the attributes of man," he wrote in THE DESCENT OF MAN (1871), "leading him without a moment's hesitation to risk his life for that fellow-creature; or after due deliberation, impelled simply by the deep feeling of right or duty, to sacrifice it in some great cause." Drawing from evolutionary ethics, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, anthropology, and ethology, Michael Shermer (WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS; HOW WE BELIEVE)takes on the difficult subject of the origins of morality and the foundations of ethics from an agnostic and nontheistic position, and contends that moral behavior can be scientifically traced to humanity's evolutionary origins. For those unfamiliar with his work, Shermer is the editor in chief of Skeptic magazine, and a frequent contributor to Scientific American. THE SCIENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL picks up where HOW WE BELIEVE ended, defining religion as a social institution that "evolved as an integral mechanism of human culture to create and promote myths, to encourage altruism and cooperation, to discourage selfishness and competitiveness, and to reveal the level of commitment to cooperate and reciprocate among members of a community" (p. 7). Shermer divides his book into two parts, first examining how morality evolved as a species-wide mechanism for survival to enforce the rules of human interactions before there were such things as state laws and constitutional rights, and then by disputing the religious position that without God, there can be no morality. In developing his notion of "provisional ethics," Shermer observes that some form of The Golden Rule (i.e., "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you") provides the foundation of morality in all human societies. Calling himself a "free rider" (p. 22), Shermer argues that humans don't need God to be moral, but that evolution has equipt the human brain with a tendency toward moral behavior. In other words, humans are moral by nature. "I may be free from God," he writes, "but the god of nature holds me to her temple of judgment no less than her other creations. I stand before my maker and judge not in some distant and future ethereal world, but in the reality of this world, a world inhabited not by spiritual and supernatural ephemera, but by real people whose lives are directly affected by my actions, and those actions directly affect my life" (p. 22). G. Merritt
Rating:
Summary: Evolutionary morality.
Review: Of all the differences between man and the lower animals, Charles Darwin believed that "the moral sense or conscience" is the most important. "It is the most noble of all the attributes of man," he wrote in THE DESCENT OF MAN (1871), "leading him without a moment's hesitation to risk his life for that fellow-creature; or after due deliberation, impelled simply by the deep feeling of right or duty, to sacrifice it in some great cause." Drawing from evolutionary ethics, evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, anthropology, and ethology, Michael Shermer (WHY PEOPLE BELIEVE WEIRD THINGS; HOW WE BELIEVE)takes on the difficult subject of the origins of morality and the foundations of ethics from an agnostic and nontheistic position, and contends that moral behavior can be scientifically traced to humanity's evolutionary origins. For those unfamiliar with his work, Shermer is the editor in chief of Skeptic magazine, and a frequent contributor to Scientific American. THE SCIENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL picks up where HOW WE BELIEVE ended, defining religion as a social institution that "evolved as an integral mechanism of human culture to create and promote myths, to encourage altruism and cooperation, to discourage selfishness and competitiveness, and to reveal the level of commitment to cooperate and reciprocate among members of a community" (p. 7). Shermer divides his book into two parts, first examining how morality evolved as a species-wide mechanism for survival to enforce the rules of human interactions before there were such things as state laws and constitutional rights, and then by disputing the religious position that without God, there can be no morality. In developing his notion of "provisional ethics," Shermer observes that some form of The Golden Rule (i.e., "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you") provides the foundation of morality in all human societies. Calling himself a "free rider" (p. 22), Shermer argues that humans don't need God to be moral, but that evolution has equipt the human brain with a tendency toward moral behavior. In other words, humans are moral by nature. "I may be free from God," he writes, "but the god of nature holds me to her temple of judgment no less than her other creations. I stand before my maker and judge not in some distant and future ethereal world, but in the reality of this world, a world inhabited not by spiritual and supernatural ephemera, but by real people whose lives are directly affected by my actions, and those actions directly affect my life" (p. 22). G. Merritt
Rating:
Summary: skepticism, philosophy and so on
Review: Shermer is a decent writer and a very sharp thinker. I'm in basic agreement with much of his worldview, although I think he's not skeptical enough here and there. He set himself several tough tasks in this book, and I'm not sure he really succeeded at any of them. Yet I don't think he really tried either, his main point was different.
He didn't go into enough depth about the evolution of altruism or cooperation. For that, I suggest you turn to Matt Ridley. He didn't go into enough depth about free-will either, but that doesn't matter to me since I think it's probably an insoluble problem. He does a very good job of covering the pop-culture level of debate on ethics, but I think he should have explored various philosophical positions much more thoroughly, and I would have been very pleased if he had covered the ethical positions that various skeptics have held in the past. His own provisional system of ethics are as reasonable as any other, although his attempt to label them scientific is dubious.
So I guess the point of this book was to engage in the pop-culture debate on ethics, to take on Dr. Laura and the religious right. So he avoided philosophical complications and so on, trying to stay relevant to America in the 21st century. Actually I'm not sure how to go about that project, but I appreciate the attempt.
The book was pleasant reading, and I enjoyed it. I'm sure that there are deeper, more thorough coverages of everything in it, but probably few are so easy to read. If you're new to the idea that a non-religious worldview could be supremely moral, this is a book that will suprise you; if that idea is old news to you, this book will entertain you.
I'd like to add that I think some of Shermer's other work, especially "How We Believe," is much better. I'd recommend reading that before this one.
Rating: 
Summary: Raises the bar for the all too human.
Review: Shermer's discussion of morality in this book is a continuation of that he started in How We Believe, though that book was less dry and more complete. Still, he bravely tackles morality with an approach not unlike Nietsche's (one must drop the crutch of religion and take responsibility for their own morals) only less angry and more scientific (hence the dryness). Shermer does do a fair job of trying to explain the beauty of individual moral responsibility, but the book concerns mainly the historical or 'evolutionary' explaination of morals, in that they serve a societal function. (A good companion book to this would be Sagan's Shadows Of Forgotten Ancestors.)
Shermer's lens seems greatly shaped by Darwin. That may be because one of his books between How We Believe and this on was In Darwin's Shadow (about Alfred Wallace), or perhaps Darwin's science is pretty solid stuff. At any rate, to apply a scientific approach to morality is to try and replace thousands of years of mythology which did the job until recently. Can morality be explained without religious ties? That's the interesting part of it. I was going to give this book 4 stars because of the slight disappointment I had with Shermer's writing style, but the topic is so vast and this book gives one of the best discussions of it I've seen in a long time. So it's a Fiver!
Rating: 
Summary: Shermer should be ashamed for minimizing the evils of 9/11!
Review: The families of the victims of 9/11 deserve a public apology from Shermer for this moral relativist blather. From Page 81: "September 11, 2001, comes to mind here. United States President George W. Bush described what happened that day as an act of pure evil. Yet millions of people around the world celebrate that day as a triumphant victory over what they perceive to be an evil American culture. What we are witnessing here is not a conceptual difference in understanding the true nature of evil. Nor is it simply a matter of who is in the right. It is, at least on one important level, a difference of perspective. To achieve true understanding and enlightenment it might help to understand what the other side was thinking." This is similar to asking: whether any reasonable person may judge Tim McVey for intentionally murdering innocent civilians (known by McVey as stormtroopers). Does having a better understanding of Charles Manson's perspective make his barbarism less evil? The 9/11 murders were EVIL, plain and simple. If Americans had performed the 9/11 atrocity, they also would have been evil and morally blameworthy in the eyes of God and reasonable people. Shame on you, Mr. Shermer.
Rating:
Summary: A Reasonable Effort
Review: This is a good overview of how ethics might have originated, but not a particularly good (pun intended) justification of ethical rule. Shermer is always entertaining, but he lacks philosophical rigor. A much better exposition on both can be found in Michael Berumen's: Do No Evil.
Rating: 
Summary: Shermer fails in half his mission
Review: To a large extent, a book like this (like any book that tries to make some case) should be judged by how well the author succeeds in making their case. In The Science of Good and Evil, Shermer attempts to explain at least three basic things: 1. Why we have certain moral attitudes (e.g. altruism) towards members of our own social group. 2. Why we have moral obligations to members outside of our social group. 3. Why #2 above (or for that matter why we're even obligated to care about in-group members) follows from our biological origins and evolution. Shermer does a relatively decent job in explaining #1 above(though Robert Wright's "The Moral Animal" is FAR superior). He utterly fails in #2 and #3 above however. Aside from the fact that evolutionary biology gives no reason why people would should care for the well being of out-groups that are competing for resources (especially if our group can kick their group's ass), Shermer runs head first into two seemingly insurmountable problems: The Fact/Value gap (and it's cousin the naturalistic fallacy), and the difference between prescriptive and descriptive ethics. Shermer attempts to address the claim that without God, moral claims would just be subjective expressions of personal attitude and hence anything would be permissible, since one person's preferences and attitudes are no more objectively valuable than anyone else's. Shermer argues that morality is grounded in the evolutionary biology of humans, and evolution has generated attitudinal proclivities in humans that have helped our survival as a species (or the survival of our genes, to put it another way). Since such morality is universally based in human biology, then the very nature of humanity would be the objective basis of morality that would still exist even if the idea of God was disposed of. However, Shermer fails to distinguish betweem "prescriptive" amd "descriptive" ethics. Descriptive ethics merely gives an objective account of moral attitudes and behavior. To say "Jones thinks doing X is immoral" would be an exaple of descriptive ethics, since it just describes a fact about what Jones thinks, rather than saying anything about whether Jones has any actual moral obligation to do X. Prescriptive ethics attempts to prescribe what people ought to do. So a statement like "Jones shouldn't do X, because that would be immoral" would be an example of prescriptive ethics. Arguing that moral attitudes are a part of human biology is an example of descriptive ethics. It objectively describes something about morality, without talking about what we actually ought to do (i.e. prescriptive thics) in any situation. In other words, so what if the history of evolution has instilled in the vast majority of humans certain moral attitudes? That doesn't say athing about whether I should obey such attitudes or not (assuming one has them). In fact, if we conclude that such attitudes aren't a result of some objective truth regarding right and wrong, but simply the result of countless generations of my genes trying to maintaing their survival, then what good reason is that to respect such attitudes when doing so isn't in one's best interests (e.g. as in when one can steal a large amount of money and get away with it)? In short, Shermer engages in the naturalitic fallacy: It's natural, therefore it's good. This fallacy is doubly problematic for Shermer since he gives biological reasons for some of our immoral behavior as well. So if both immoral and moral attidues are hardwired in us as humans, why should we follow one instinct when it conflicts with another instinct? Shermer gives no good reason. And in fact, the "fact/value gap" says that descriptions of nonmoral facts acn never result in demonstrating (by itself) what we ought to do or not do. Then, Shermer makes a giant leap by asserting certain moral values respecting the happiness and liberty of people which he thinks are important, but in no way follow from his evolutionary analysis, nor follow from any other reason he gives. The most he does is "test" the values he proposes by seeing how they work with respect to certain moral issues (abortion, animal rights, etc.). Shermer describes himself as a pretty radical libertarian. What a surprise then that the values he personally espouses (but gives no reason why anyone whould adopt them) produce political results acceptable to a libertarian! Amazing discovery: A libertarian's values entail libertarian conclusions. In short, Shermer gives no good reason why people should not screw over and exploit others when douing so is in their (or their group's) best interests to do so. That's not saying there is no reason not to, period. It just says that Shermer's attempt to provide some "sceintific" basis for morality fails.
|
