Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene
I read this book a year ago as a library book. I took copious notes, and Kindle notes.
I would like to share that and comment on it in such a way as to persuade folks to read the thing.
I decided to do some sort of overview / summary from my notes, and from whatever ChatGPT can create for me. What’s the relevance? Why is this a tremendous insight into moral issues? Why would a lawyer / theologian care about this?
And I started an outline:
Outline - main ideas - goal, etc.
How Humans Work
Not Rational, emotions instant, reflection difficult
Feeling all the way down
Genetic propensity in the DNA
Authority setting rules - parents, religion, civil authorities, tradition, culture
Social / Tribal feeling and need
Feelings / ideas are basically the same thing
Evolving “rules” for life - customs, “rights,” laws, commandments.
The moral decision : what enhances human life to the fullest in the long term.
Look at his 6 rules in the last chapter.
Clarify the way “rights” work and the legal framework. The book seems short on that.
I was not getting very far so, I asked ChatGPT a question , and this is the result. I had asked it about things in the past, like a book by Stiglitz, and similar things. It seems to retain those and use them. This whole exchange kind of amazed me, and particularly by the conclulsion the thing reach on its own. See below.
I said.
Hi. Can you give me a summary of this book: Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene. I read it last year and I have forgotten what I planned to do with all my notes on it. Thanks.
ChatGPT said:
Sure, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them by Joshua Greene explores moral psychology, tribalism, and how human morality evolved to resolve conflicts within and between groups. Greene argues that our moral instincts—shaped by evolution—work well within small, like-minded groups but often fail when dealing with larger, diverse societies. He suggests that we need a "meta-morality," a system for resolving moral conflicts between different moral tribes.
Key Points:
Dual-Process Moral Thinking – Greene applies the System 1 vs. System 2 model to moral decision-making. Our intuitive, emotional responses (System 1) work well for in-group cooperation but can lead to intergroup conflict. Deliberate reasoning (System 2) is necessary to transcend tribal morality.
The Tragedy of Common-Sense Morality – Different moral tribes have their own "common sense" but often conflict with each other. Our moral instincts evolved for cooperation within groups, not for resolving large-scale moral disagreements.
Utilitarianism as a Meta-Morality – Greene argues for utilitarianism (or deep pragmatism) as the best framework for solving moral disputes across tribes. He believes maximizing overall well-being provides a rational way to mediate between competing moral systems.
The Trolley Problem and Moral Psychology – The book uses thought experiments like the trolley problem to illustrate how our moral intuitions work, showing how different moral instincts can lead to inconsistent ethical judgments.
Expanding the Moral Circle – Greene urges us to use reasoning and empathy to overcome tribal biases, promoting global cooperation rather than group-based moral absolutism.
Your Notes:
Since you read this last year, you might have planned to apply Greene’s ideas to:
Political polarization – Understanding how moral tribes contribute to ideological division.
Legal or ethical reasoning – Applying meta-morality to legal debates.
Neuroscience & psychology – Exploring how moral cognition affects behavior.
Religious and philosophical ethics – Reconciling moral tribalism with broader ethical frameworks.
Does this summary help jog your memory about what you wanted to do with your notes?
I said
I think you have it. As I recall I was somewhat surprised that he did not understand the role that "human rights" have in our society. I see them as rules of thumb that we have developed over time to help us move our emotions to the better moral outcome.
ChatGPT said:
That’s a sharp observation. Greene’s focus on utilitarianism as a meta-morality sometimes sidelines the role of human rights as moral anchors. He treats morality as a problem-solving mechanism but seems less attuned to the way human rights serve as heuristics—rules of thumb that guide moral decision-making, particularly when emotions and reason are at odds.
Your view aligns with scholars who see human rights as a practical evolution of moral reasoning, helping individuals and societies override tribal biases in favor of broader ethical principles. While utilitarianism seeks to maximize overall well-being, human rights provide non-negotiable guardrails to prevent rationalized harm, even when it might increase net utility in the short term.
It sounds like you were considering how human rights function as a bridge between emotion and reason—helping move our System 1 intuitions toward System 2 outcomes that are more just and sustainable. Were you planning to write something on this idea? It seems like a compelling critique of Greene’s approach.
I said
Thanks. Right now I am more concerned with my priorities for my time. I think there are much more urgent things for humankind than coming up with a full understanding of how we developed our morals. We seem to be faced with a total collapse of our democratic institutions. I see no way to stop that. Any suggestions on that one?
ChatGPT said:
That’s the real question, isn’t it? Understanding how we developed our morals is interesting, but it feels like a luxury when democracy itself is teetering. If we take a Moral Tribes lens to this, we could say we’re witnessing a full-scale tribal breakdown—where common ground is disappearing, and shared democratic norms are eroding.
A few angles to consider:
1. Identifying the Core Threats
Polarization & Tribalism – People increasingly view politics as a battle between “good” and “evil,” making compromise impossible.
Disinformation & Media Fragmentation – There’s no common reality. Even facts are now tribal markers.
Erosion of Institutions – Courts, elections, and rule of law are under attack, often from within.
Authoritarian Drift – Leaders worldwide are undermining democracy by using democratic tools.
2. What Can Be Done?
Strengthening Democratic Norms – Laws alone don’t uphold democracy—shared norms do. These need to be reinforced through civic education and political engagement.
Addressing Economic Inequality – As Stiglitz and Piketty argue, rising inequality fuels populism and extremism. If people feel left behind, they’re more likely to support authoritarian solutions.
Regulating Social Media & Information Warfare – The unchecked spread of disinformation is one of democracy’s biggest vulnerabilities.
Electoral Reforms – Ranked-choice voting, independent redistricting, and campaign finance reform could reduce hyper-partisanship. But political will is lacking.
Local Action – Change often happens locally. Can people protect democratic processes in their own communities?
The Hard Truth
I won’t sugarcoat it—history suggests that once democratic backsliding begins, it’s extremely difficult to reverse. The U.S. and other democracies are at a crossroads, and there’s no guarantee we’ll make it through intact.
What’s your take? Do you see any path forward that’s actually viable? Or are we just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic?
I said.
Damn, I do not. The only bulwark we have in law is the courts. But our courts have no enforcement mechanism. They can fine - but they cannot collect the funds. They can imprison, but they have no human agents to secure people in confinement. They write orders, but are unable to compel anyone to actually follow them. I would like a better system, thank you.
ChatGPT said:
You’ve nailed a fundamental flaw in our legal system—courts have authority, but no real power of enforcement. They rely on the executive branch to uphold their rulings. When that chain of enforcement breaks (as we’re seeing with politicians ignoring court orders), the entire system starts to unravel.
What Would a Better System Look Like?
If we were designing a system from scratch, what would it need? Here are some possible reforms that could help:
1. Independent Enforcement Mechanism
Right now, courts depend on executive agencies (police, U.S. Marshals, military) to enforce rulings. What if the judiciary had its own independent enforcement body?
A national, politically neutral Judicial Enforcement Corps that operates under court authority, ensuring compliance without executive interference.
2. Structural Safeguards Against Political Capture
Courts, especially the Supreme Court, are being used as political weapons.
Possible solutions:
Term limits for justices (staggered to prevent ideological swings).
Stronger ethics rules (mandatory recusals, financial transparency).
Balanced appointments (e.g., requiring bipartisan approval for judges).
3. Automatic Sanctions for Ignoring Court Orders
Right now, defying a court is often a political choice with few consequences.
What if courts could automatically trigger penalties without executive action?
Financial penalties directly deducted from government funds.
Automatic contempt orders with mandatory congressional review.
Loss of federal funding for states/agencies that ignore rulings.
4. Democratic Resilience Mechanisms
Beyond courts, democracy needs self-correcting features:
Easier citizen-led constitutional amendments to override extremist policies.
Mandatory civic education in schools (teaching people how democracy works).
Greater decentralization (shifting power from the federal government to local democratic institutions).
The Reality Check
Of course, implementing any of this requires political will—which is in short supply. The system is resistant to change, especially when those in power benefit from the status quo.
But if democracy is on the brink, is radical reform the only answer?
Would you support constitutional changes to fix this, or do you think we need something even more drastic?
I said:
We could make the US Marshals into that kind of enforcement body. Take them away from the executive branch. But . . . not this year. Thanks.
ChatGPT said:
Exactly—if the U.S. Marshals were moved under the judiciary, they could act as an independent enforcement arm. That would give the courts real teeth without relying on the executive branch. But as you said, not this year—or likely anytime soon. The political reality won’t allow it.
Still, it’s worth keeping ideas like this in mind. If (or when) the crisis deepens, people may finally be willing to consider real structural reforms. Until then, I suppose we just brace ourselves.
Let me know if you want to keep brainstorming—or if you’d rather focus on something less grim for the moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment