1
RWS 100
Can Morality Change?
Can our sense of morality be changed by our environments if it is set in our genetic
make-up? In the New York Times Magazine article titled “The Moral Instinct,” Harvard College
professor and expert psychologist Steven Pinker argues that morality may simply be another part
of evolution and therefore, when making decisions or judgments, we do so subconsciously, based
on instinct rather than reason. Pinker claims that understanding how morality works can help us
change our sense of justice and make better decisions without being blinded by moral illusions
such as believing Mother Teresa is more admirable than Bill Gates because she helped the poor
in Calcutta, when in reality, Gates also did his share and used his billions to help fight diseases
such as malaria, diarrhea, and parasites in developing areas of the world, which makes him just
as admirable, if not more so than Mother Teresa. By understanding each other’s morality, there
can also be better communication and more common ground between adversaries instead of
mindless arguing and demonizing of the other side. In this paper, I will complicate Pinker’s
major claim about morality only being part of evolution by using one outside text by psychology
professor Paul Bloom and then, I will explain the possibilities of a changing morality by
illustrating and extending Pinker’s argument with social psychologist Jonathan Haidt’s 2008
TED Talk. Finally, I will explore Pinker’s major claim on how we should understand our
morality in order to better ourselves and I will argue how this could be a benefit to everyone.
In the section titled “The Genealogy of Morals,” Pinker expresses his agreement with a
theory that claims morality could be a part of evolution, something forged into our genes. To
support his argument, Pinker explains the five moral spheres—five themes that are universal, but
vary in importance for each individual. These five spheres are harm, fairness, community,
authority, and purity; they make up our morality and influence our choices. Within these spheres,
lie moral emotions—emotions such as sympathy, anger, gratitude, and guilt that help maintain
order between people just as animals do in the animal kingdom.
According to Pinker:
Sympathy prompts a person to offer the first favor, particularly to someone in need for
whom it would go the furthest. Anger protects a person against cheaters who accept a
favor without reciprocating, by impelling him to punish the ingrate or sever the
relationship. Gratitude impels a beneficiary to reward those who helped him in the past.
Guilt prompts a cheater in danger of being found out to repair the relationship by
redressing the misdeed and advertising that he will behave better in the future. (Pinker
67)
Pinker claims that these emotions are part of our evolution, and therefore, hard to change
because they’re engrained into our being, however, he doesn’t take into account the idea that
morality could be changed through time thanks to our environment, but Paul Bloom, a
psychologist from Yale University, believes it’s a possibility.
In his article “How Do Morals Change?” published in Nature, Bloom argues that morals
evolve through time. He explains that social moral standards have changed, and we have
changed with them. “Contemporary readers of Nature, for example, have different beliefs about
the rights of women, racial minorities and homosexuals compared with readers in the late 1800s,
2
and different intuitions about the morality of practices such as slavery, child labor and the abuse
of animals for public entertainment,” Bloom explains (Nature 490). Given these examples, he
claims that our morality shifts along with popular opinion and what we may not see as moral
today, fifty years from now could be completely acceptable. According to Bloom, our morality
changes based on rational deliberation and debate of issues at hand, proving that we have much
more control over our morality than Pinker believes. Bloom complicates and extends Pinker’s
claims further by explaining his contact hypothesis which states that as we expand our social
circle, we also expand our ‘moral circle’ and begin to associate with people who share our goals
and other aspirations, therefore, our morality shifts as we exchange our opinions on certain issues
with others with whom we socialize. However, Bloom states that his hypothesis cannot explain
the birth of new moral ideas, ideas like the value of democracy or the importance of animal
rights; issues people support in large groups even though many have never been in direct contact
with each other. He believes the answer lies in the power of persuasion. Propaganda, novels,
television, and stories from average people can easily change the perspective and thoughts of
many, leading to new moral standards that weren’t there before. This means that morality is even
more malleable than we think; we always strive to do what is right and in the process, we come
across many choices, but we only choose the ones that convince us, the ones that persuade us to
believe them—that is how morality changes.
Pinker only takes into account genes and human nature, exempting the idea that our
morality could change through what we see and hear every day, but Bloom points out several
ways our morality can change and how easily it sometimes does. While it is true that Bloom
agrees morality may be in our genes, he explains that the power of persuasion is much stronger
and can shift what we believe to be right and wrong. Pinker also states that our morality could
change, but he offers no explanations or examples as to how; he only insists that we should study
our morality in order to change it and change ourselves, but if our morality is changed as easily
as Bloom stated, then all we really need to do is be persuaded to change ourselves, and in turn,
change our surroundings.
A second claim made by Pinker in his section titled “Doing Better By Knowing
Ourselves,” is that by understanding morality we can not only understand ourselves, but others as
well. What we may think is right, others may think is absolutely wrong, and it’s simply because
their sense of morality is just a bit different from our own—their moral spheres are set into a
different order of importance from ours. “In any conflict in which a meeting of the minds is not
completely hopeless, a recognition that the other guy is acting from moral rather than venal
reasons can be a first patch of common ground,” he states (Pinker 71). Pinker states that we have
a habit of moralizing issues which works against us; we take too long deliberating problems that
shouldn’t need any deliberation because we feel it’s either morally wrong, or the solutions are
immoral. However, Pinker claims that by understanding the reasons behind someone else’s
morality, both sides can reach an agreement and share their thoughts on matters without the
obstruction of moral illusions or the need to bash on each other’s opinions. And Pinker is not the
only one who believes learning more about morality is important to improve ourselves, New
York University professor and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt also agrees.
Like Pinker, Haidt claims that understanding morality can lead to more productive
discussions and more compromises, especially in politics. During his time on TED Talk in 2008,
3
Haidt supported this argument by using liberals and conservatives as an example and explaining
the main differences between the two political groups.
Haidt explained those differences to the audience of TED:
Liberals are much higher than conservatives on a major personality trait called openness
to experience. People who are high in openness to experience just crave novelty, variety,
diversity, new ideas, travel; People low on it like things that are familiar, that are safe and
dependable.
He stated that through the simple human trait of openness, you can understand why certain
people are so different from each other, and in turn, their morality. Open individuals are usually
liberals while closed individuals usually prefer traditional views and therefore, usually
conservative. But how does this help us know each other’s morality better and improve our
relationships with those opposing our views? Well, Haidt also uses the five spheres of
morality—harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity—to answer this question. Haidt
asserts that liberals give high importance to harm and fairness, but not as much to community,
authority, and purity, which in turn affects their morality and reasoning behind their decisions.
Conservatives in the other hand, give a high importance to all five of the moral spheres, which
causes them to question liberals based on their own moral standards as well. Still, Haidt
continues to add that, “…liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute… they
form a balance on change versus stability.” He explains that neither group’s opinions are wrong,
they are simply following their own sense of morality and making judgments, however, if they
could both combine their ideals, we could all benefit from it. Haidt states that everyone thinks
they’re correct, but no one takes it into account, which then leads to no cooperation between both
sides and to the divided American government we have today.
In order to advance the world, Pinker and Haidt both believe we should start by
understanding each other’s morality. To do this, one must step out of our own sense of justice
and try to reason someone else’s. Haidt reminds us that, “…if our goal is to understand the world,
to seek a deeper understanding of the world, our general lack of moral diversity… is going to
make it harder.” He points out that, if our clashing ideals keep us from understanding each
other—not just in politics, but in many other key issues of society—then how can we expect to
understand the great world around us? However, we can change and understand. Once we are
able push our sense of morality to the side for a moment, we can learn to compromise based on
ideals we share with the other side instead of continuing a long winded discussion of the matter
without any real solution. Liberals and conservatives could find common ground if they tried to
understand the psychology of morality, which could in turn improve our society, but they’re not
the only ones who should be open to change. Everyone should. We face many issues every day
that challenge our morality—from the simple act of giving our seat to an elder to deciding
whether or not we should pull the plug on someone’s life support—but the fact remains that
whatever our reasoning is for making such decisions, we make them because we believe is right.
If we are able to understand that simple fact, then we’ve already begun to change ourselves for
the better.
Finally, the two outside sources—Bloom’s article on changing morals and Haidt’s TED
Talk—complicate and then extend Pinker’s argument on morality and its possibility of change.
Bloom expands upon an idea that Pinker merely suggests and claims that morality changes
4
thanks to the art of persuasion. On the other hand, Haidt agrees with Pinker on the idea that the
psychology of morality should be understood in order for progress to be made in the world, and
as an example of his ideas, he uses the five spheres in order to uncover the differences between
liberals and conservatives and sheds light on what could change if both groups tried to
understand each other’s sense of morality. Pinker’s claim that morality could be just an instinct
thanks to evolution lost strength because of Bloom’s argument, but his claim on understanding
morality was definitely stronger after Haidt expressed agreement and gave examples. Overall,
most of Pinker’s claims were effective and solid, but a couple were left unresolved and with not
enough evidence. Still, his article did stir my curiosity on morality and led me to research it
further on my own.
Interestingly enough, after reading these different points of view, as well as a few other
sources, I’ve been persuaded to believe our morality can change, but it’s up to us and our
conscience to change it for the better. Perhaps, other readers were persuaded too, or at least, were
intrigued by the subject matter. Morality is such a complex idea that we can’t even begin to
explain, we only know it exists and it lets us know what is right or wrong, but at the same time, it
varies with each person. Pinker suggests that by studying the science of morality we can, “…see
through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and… focus on goals we
can share and defend” (Pinker 72). In other words, this newfound understanding can lead to
changes in our morality, which, according to Paul Bloom, is quite malleable. And it is Pinker’s
as well as Jonathan Haidt’s hope, that these changes can then help us better ourselves and our
surroundings.
Works Cited
Bloom, Paul. "Nature." Nature. 464. (2010): 490. Print.
"Jonathan Haidt: The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives." TED. 2008. Web.
<http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html>.
Pinker, Steven. "The Moral Instinct." New York Times Magazine. 13 2008: n. page. Print.