Rating: 
Summary: Feelings, nothing more than feelings...
Review: Don't be misled by the title of this book - it is deceptively named. The proper title would be "The Amoral Animal", because the book is not about morality, it is about why we act as though there is such a thing as morality. It is not about defining morality in any real sense, it is about why the majority of humans generally act as though they believe that certain things are "moral" ("right"), and certain things are "immoral" ("wrong"). This is not my opinion - Wright ends the chapter "Evolutionary Ethics" with these sentences: "We are potentially moral animals - which is more than any other animal can say - but we aren't naturally moral animals. To be moral animals, we must realize how thoroughly we aren't." Though he wants us to be, and has a feeling that we should be, he unequivocally admits (as we will see that he must) that we aren't moral at all. The author intends to show that our "moral impulses" are the result of an evolutionary process which has left its mark (to one degree or another) on each of us. For instance, the general, human prohibition against indiscriminate murder is present in virtually all cultures not because it is morally true, but because it has proven to be good evolutionary strategy. Monogamy is another moral ideal in virtually all cultures for the same reason. In essence, we feel the way we feel because organisms which felt that way made it through the sieve of natural selection more often than those which did not. We feel these feelings because the genes which form us command it. We possess what Wright calls "the knobs of human nature", one for guilt, one for lust (and so on), and each individual has the knobs tuned slightly differently due to random chance and the environment in which we mature. Above all - the master volume control, if you will - is the prime directive of the gene: Survive and reproduce. All moral predilections will generally be subverted to this main goal. It's not really a goal, of course, since no consciousness directs the process of evolution. Wright acknowledges, early on, the "naturalistic fallacy" (The inference of "what ought to be" from "what is", and something that, as any honest scientist will tell you, science cannot do) though he constantly commits it. Note that he didn't subtitle the book "The Way We Ought to Be". Even after acknowledging that the fallacy exists, he cannot bring himself to admit the fatal flaw (to his case) inherent to his premises: If Darwinian evolution is what really happened to produce homo sapiens, then "what is" is all there is. There is, and can be, no "ought". Accordingly, here are a few of the things that are NOT moral behaviors: Familial love (whether man/woman, parent/child or sibling/sibling), monogamy, promiscuity, altruism, charity, jealousy (even leading to murder), grief, friendship, conscience, guilt, shame, lying, pride... You get the picture. The things that we act upon as if they are real turn out to be ephemera; fantasies concocted by our genes and opaque to true introspection. Add to the list: There is no good, there is no evil. Awe, hope, despair, inspiration, "the human spirit", beauty, magnificence - these feelings which lead us to excel aren't real at all. One person looks at a giant sequoia and sees an irreplaceable, priceless miracle. Another sees a warehouse full of toilet paper. Neither is wrong; neither is correct. Both are merely expressing their feelings. That list illuminates the flaw in his premise: There can be opinion; there can be desire; there can be consensus; there can be fact; but there can be no truth. You can NOT trust what you feel, because it isn't real. We are the result of billions of unlikely accidents and if we were to vanish like the dinosaurs, leaving only a few bones and suppositions behind, absolutely no moral truths would be lost with us. Wright can't accept this; he irrationally insists that morality is exempt from the constraints of his premises. A belief in morality (given his premises) is irrational on its face. As an example, investigate his opinion on homosexuality. It seems clear that "homophobia" might be a perfectly reasonable genetic reaction to an organism which has no desire to follow the prime directive (Let me say here that I disagree, but for totally different reasons. In my opinion, persecution based upon any human attribute is wrong). Wright brings up the subject himself in the FAQ appendix of the book, and his opinion mirrors perfectly the chasm between what is real and what he feels. He finds that human homosexuals don't serve a function similar to non-reproducing individuals in other species, since the latter sacrifice their own reproduction to the good of the whole. To the contrary - in his words - homosexuals do not seem to spend extra attention or resources on those organisms desiring to reproduce. Neither does he find a straightforward genetic reason for homosexuality. Perhaps there is a confluence of genes and environment which "impels" an individual towards that lifestyle - probably, but perhaps not. Ultimately his answer is, "Who cares? Leave them alone, they aren't hurting anybody." Sadly, given Wright's foundational premises, this answer is just as morally true as "I don't like them. Kill 'em all". It is his opinion, and he has nothing to base it on but his feelings. Thus the title of this review. The ultimate message of the book is this: Do not go looking for "moral animals", for you will not find them. You will find self-serving gene machines doing what it takes, even if it appears to be against their best interest. Though we can, if we choose to, override or manipulate the machine, the vast majority of us will not do so - we will follow the prime directive. Though we "feel" that things are moral, they really are no such thing. It's just the way we are.
Rating: 
Summary: A Powerful Theory Beautifully Explained
Review: This compelling, amusing, and carefully argued book sheds light on a theory of human nature that has devastating explanatory power, but which has been too long suppressed by ideologues who do not know the difference between explaining behavior on the one hand and condoning it on the other. Because evolutionary psychology seeks to explain human nature objectively - free of value-laden terminology - it has been attacked as a rationalization for rape, adultury, murder, etc... Hopefully this book will help clarify for the general reader that accurate information about human nature is a necessary tool for correcting or eliminating intolerable behaviors. It is written in fluid prose. Elegant metaphors appear just when they are needed, and are pushed just far enough to flesh out a given point. Personable and well timed humor lightens things up regularly. Most importantly, Wright leads the reader through the frequently complex and sometimes seemingly contradictory insights of evolutionary psychology with consumate skill.
Rating:
Summary: The Point Of Genetics
Review: Many reviewers seem to miss the point. A book like this introduces us to the idea that genetics has an operational purpose, and each side of the species (male and female) may have separate strategies to maximize advantage (but of course we also co-operate). Children raised in tough times do better with both parents being good parents. Genetics do not have politically correct agenda, they either motivate successful behaviors (meaning being passed into the future), or they do not go forward. If such dynamics favor Victorian methodologies, so be it (or not). This fascinating attempt to explore why we are the way we are is worth reading because it is thought provoking; Evolutionary Psychologists might just help us better manage our mutually shared existence (even if we have to stand up to our genetics, which is really his point regarding why the Victorians had some good ideas).
Rating: 
Summary: Exciting field, disappointing book
Review: Evolutionary psychology is a fantastically exciting, expanding new area of interest, research and publication. Unfortunately, this book, while it does contain some interesting research (other people's), is often hijacked by a lack of focus (is it a serious science book or not?) and the author's annoying tendency to reinforce his own political agenda with somewhat shaky, self-serving logic. More than a few caveats are missing from his mis-application of some isolated ideas (which are not necessarily inherently flawed, just incomlete) to the whole of human society and gender relations. Fascinating for Pat Robertson clones who demand some rudimentary science, but the rest of us can do better. Try Matt Ridley, Jared Diamond, Sarah Blaffer-Hrdy, Natalie Angier, or even Stephen Pinker. This is not the only book out there on this subject, and it is certainly not the best one. While there are undeniably differences between the sexes, evolutionary theory does not automatically validate that old set of sexist premises. Most of human prehistory is still highly speculative at this point... it is important to keep in mind that in a science so young and speculative, a theorist's own sociocultural biases are bound to shape things. Don't trade in your schoolbooks for a copy of "The Rules" just yet. But don't give up on evolutionary theory either. Wright is just one of many- perverting science with his own odious set of prejudices and assumptions.
Rating:
Summary: Old hat science and misogyny masquerading as cutting edge...
Review: Don't waste your time or money. Though the science is adequate and the logic occasionally interesting to follow, the author cannot hide his thinly veiled sexist victorian philsophy. The text is full of barbs aimed at feminists, prostitutes, female scientists, and just about everyone else who doesn't happen to buy the religious right version of morality. If you want insight into the dynamics of male/female relationships, you'd be better served reading "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" (but not by much). This book has a hidden agenda, and an ugly one at that.
Rating:
Summary: Careful readers with skeptical minds will find flaws
Review: The previous reviewer declares that "As a student of evolution should know, suitability to the ancestral environment--i.e., small hunter-gatherer tribal groups--does not easily translate into the modern, urban environment." This misses the point. Wright's morals are simply NOT the "morals" (instincts) of small hunter-gatherer groups no matter how much he would like them to be. Men do not "instinctually" show contempt for women who have sex with them before marriage; good looking women are not "instinctually" sexually restrained. These are cultural artifacts based on an understanding of where babies come from, people being forced to have one partner for life despite having innate desires for more, and women being dependant on men. The madonna/whore dichotomy in it's stripped down "natural" form is simply a man sleeping with many but investing in one (or as many as he can afford and the law will allow). A woman who makes a man wait may in fact be more likely to become the one he invests in. However, this does not equal contempt for his short-term liaisons, as Wright continually asserts for the first third of his book. Wright's love for the Victorian era is equally bizarre. Victorian wives were basically forced to have sex with their husbands with no regard for their pleasure -- for wives to find pleasure in the act was considered a "mental illness." Victorian England was also fraught with sexual deviation and debauchery, which married men engaged in, but of course not with their wives. Yet Wright would have us believe that men "respected" their wives and Victorian ideals are the best method for repressing the potential damage our polygamous natures my incur.
Rating:
Summary: Careful readers benefit from Wright's insights
Review: Wright's work, which continues Dawkins' and Darwin's, makes evolutionary psychology clear and accessible. But like many overviews of branches of science, one needs to appreciate the subtle and counter-intuitive points the author makes to fully understand the author's thesis. Wright clearly states his cultural bias in the final chapter of the book, and makes the case for traditional mores despite their insuitability to our ancestral environment. What we want to do, he points out, is not necessarily what we should do. The bulk of the book explains what we want to do, and to a lesser extent how culture informs our sexual choices. He deliberately avoids in-depth discussion of culture's influence, preferring to explain how morality evolved in our ancestral environment, and how it suits that environment. As a student of evolution should know, suitability to the ancestral environment--i.e., small hunter-gatherer tribal groups--does not easily translate into the modern, urban environment. Wright makes that very clear. Read in conjunction with Dawkins' _Selfish Gene_, this is a must-have part of a complete library.
Rating:
Summary: Profoundly Unscientific, Poorly Reasoned
Review: I am a student of evolutionary psychology and evolution, and I found this book a poor representation of both. This book fails to provide anything more than carefully selected biological jargon to support the author's desire for a world based on Victorian principles of sexual restraint and life-long monogamy. Wright is under several delusions. First, that pretty women have more sexual restraint. Gee, Wright, I guess that means that all those women in pornography and Playboy are grotesque! The reality is that attractive women have the opportunity to play at high-stakes in the world of sexual economics. Being in high demand, they have two choices -- they can withhold supply to the highest bidder (marriage) or, they can supply sex to many lesser bidders in the form of dates, serial monogamy, prostitution, or other sex work. Which a woman chooses is PURELY CULTURAL. Today in the first world, thanks to the economic power and reproductive choices women now enjoy, most women choose serial monogamy. In Victorian times they choose marriage. In societies in which marriage is drudgery and prostitution is legal, the most independent woman will choose prostitution. Where prostitutes are killed, of course, only the very desperate will risk it. To say that NATURE dictates monogamous life-long marriage as the MORALLY superior choice is pure and utter fantasy. The other delusion Wright holds is that men loathe women they sleep with unless they are married, and that women are best off withholding sex lest their willingness destroy any budding love he may have had for her. This is also backward logic. It is indeed true that men will have sex with women they dislike, and almost immediately after the act they will be reminded of his dislike and flee. The point here is that he disliked her to begin with, not because they had sex. It is also true that men are not willing to invest a marriage commitment in women who are not sexually loyal, but at the same time have no trouble having sex with such women. This is evolutionary advantagous and should be expected. However, it is again PURELY CULTURAL for a man to feel hatred for the women he has sex with but does not marry, or to be offended by a woman's appetite or enjoyment of sex. Not proposing marriage is not the equivalent of hatred, though Wright seems to think so. And yes, of course culture comes from the adapted mind, but cultures are vastly different. It is the intersection of biology and environment that creates culture, and it is within culture that morals are formed.
Rating:
Summary: It will take some time ...
Review: ... but eventually the evidence that our brains are simply more complex versions of the brains of our animal cousins will be overwhelming. At that point, denials that EP can explain 'why we are the way we are' will sound just like denials that evolution exists at all. Many people have a good reason to reject the ideas that Wright presents so clearly. First, it renders much of sociology and traditional psychology obsolete. Ouch. Second, it posits that humans have inherent behavioral tendencies, which can differ (often substantially) between men and women. Ouch again. A scientist should always be asking 'why'. Wright's book summarizes the answers that a new science is offering.
Rating:
Summary: The Moral Animal
Review: Fabulous book. Makes you think about the actions we perform everyday in our life and why. Helps to understand people and natural instincts. It is a fascinating book.
| 
