Yet More Wisdom From Calvin and Hobbes

1) After reading through Pinker's "The Blank Slate" one of the ideas he proposes near the conclusion of the piece coincides directly with what I consider morality.

  One day, Calvin announces to his tiger companion Hobbes,“I don’t believe in ethics any more. As far as I’m concerned, the ends justify the means. Get what you can while the getting’s good, that’s what I say. Might makes right. The winners write the history books. It’s a dog- eat-dog world, so I’ll do whatever I have to and let others argue about whether it’s ‘right’ or not.” Whereupon Hobbes pushes him into the mud, and he exclaims, “Hey! Why’d you do that?!” Hobbes explains,“You were in my way. Now you’re not. The ends justify the means.” Calvin says, “I didn’t mean for everyone, you dolt. Just me.”

This shows the logical untenability of a morality based on the ethic of “just me.” As soon as your fate depends on the behavior of other people and you engage them in any kind of dialogue, you can’t maintain that your interests are privileged simply because you’re the one who has them and expect them to take you seriously, any more than you can say that the point that you happen to be standing on is a privileged spot in the universe because you happened to be standing on it at that very moment. It’s this core idea of the interchangeability of perspectives, or the recognition of other people’s interests, that’s the true basis of morality... 

2) This paragraph (and cartoon) shows that human interaction and morality are tied together. As Pinker says, morality based only on one's selfish interests does not work. This section of the paper really spoke to me because I have recently been struggling to define my personal morals. Immediately after reading this I knew this was basically how I felt about morality. I was taught to always show respect to others and their values and ideas, regardless of my own opinions about them. I love when Pinker writes, "As soon as your fate depends on the behavior of other people and you engage them in any kind of dialogue, you can’t maintain that your interests are privileged simply because you’re the one who has them...". I believe that in modern society acceptance and the ability to consider others ideas and interests ahead, or at least along side, our own is faltering at an alarming rate of speed. Pinker talks about "interchangeability of perspectives" and I would say that this notion has tremendous potential on eliminating conflict on all societal levels. Morality is something that requires interaction with others and learning from those interactions. Knowledge and experience gained from these interactions can then be applied to developing morals because you've gained others perspectives (not "just me") which is why social interaction is necessary. 

3) The "science wars" have been raging and will continue to rage on into the future. Pinker's ideas in "The Blank Slate" offer biological explanations for human nature with some very controversial definitions. However, one interesting part of this piece was that the paragraph listed above was not surrounded by controversy. Developing morals doesn't require a God, or even any lessons, because, as Pinker suggests, morality has an inherent logic. The main message I think we can all take from Pinker's piece is that ideas about human nature can and should be explained biologically. As we evolve and change as a society our ideas need to evolve and change as well. I think this is the essence of the science wars. Because we all face moral dilemmas and decisions, these ideas Pinker proposes apply to everyone and society in general. If we can all advance together, and learn to recognize each others ideas and values, society as a whole will be better benefiting from these "science wars".