Pinker Pre-Reading Questions/Activities ................................................................ 1
Some Discussion Questions & Classroom Activities ............................................... 3
SOME CLASS ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................... 5
Predicting the Argument ..................................................................................... 5
Jigsaw Group Charting Exercise .......................................................................... 5
Applying Pinker to News Stories ......................................................................... 5
Videos to Explain/Supplement parts of Pinker, & introduce outside sources ..... 6
Charting/Rhetorical Reading .................................................................................. 6
Charting the Introduction ................................................................................... 6
Comparing Pinker’s Introduction with 2 Research Articles on Similar Topic ....... 8
Before you have students read Pinker, you may wish to have them take the “morality survey” at yourmorals.org. It’s a survey that people all over the world have taken, and the site discusses the pattern of results. You could also “jigsaw” working with the site – have some students take the test and respond with what they thought of the results, have others describe the project aims, and others the results so far, plus what the researchers make of them, etc.
The survey is rather long, so I made a copy of them that you can use if you just want to select some to discuss. This is on the wiki .
General Questions
1.
Where does our sense of morality come from?
2.
Are moral principles “innate” – are we all born with a kind of moral compass?
3.
Or is our moral sense shaped primarily by socialization – by culture, parenting, etc.?
4.
To what extent is our sense of right and wrong based on conscious reason and logic, and to what extent on unconscious emotion or feelings?
5.
Are there objective, universal moral values, that do (or should) apply in all times and places?
6.
Moral “relativism” suggests that definitions of morality are produced by societies and that just as societies vary, so too do definitions of what is moral. Do you agree? And if you do agree, does this imply that we can’t easily rank one set of moral beliefs over another?
7.
If you had to come up with a short list of basic moral principles, what would they be?
8.
Do you think animals have a moral sense, and if so, how is it like/unlike human morality?
9.
To what extent is morality dependent on religion?
1

Moral Hierarchies
How would you rank the following moral qualities?

Fairness

Empathy, sympathy, and reciprocity (do unto others…)

Avoiding/stopping Harm

Loyalty and Solidarity

Purity and Dignity

Respect for Authority
(Note – you could ask your students some of these questions in order to see whether you get the same kind of response researchers claim to have found, but also to prompt students to “question the question.” That is, are these kinds of questions actually any use in getting at the issues psychologists propose to study?)
Researchers who study morality devise “moral dilemmas” to try to figure out how our moral reasoning works. Some researchers suggest that responses to these dilemmas show that our moral reasoning is often
“unconscious,” automatic, and driven more by feeling than by reason and logic. That is, we immediately
“feel” something to be right or wrong, then struggle to bend the reasons we have to the feeling, often with limited success. See if this applies to the dilemmas below.
The Trolley Problem version 1. “You see a trolley car hurtling down the track, the conductor slumped over the controls. In the path of the trolley are five men working on the track…You are standing at a fork in the track and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley onto a spur, saving the five men.
Unfortunately, the trolley would then run over a single worker who is laboring on the spur. Is it permissible to throw the switch, killing one man to save five? Why/why not?
The Trolley Problem version 2. You are on a bridge overlooking the tracks and have spotted the runaway trolley bearing down on the five workers. Now the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a heavy object in its path. And the only heavy object within reach is a fat man standing next to you.(It won’t help to jump yourself; you’re too small to stop the trolley.) If you push him off, he will divert the trolley, saving the workers, but he will die. Should you throw the man off the bridge?
Why/why not?
Most believe that you would be right to throw the switch, yet wrong to push the man. But why do we think this? And are we right to do so?
Harming One to Save Many.
It is wartime. You and your fellow villagers are hiding from enemy soldiers in a basement. Your baby starts to cry, and you cover your baby’s mouth to block the sound.
If you remove your hand, your baby will cry loudly, and the soldiers will hear. They will find you, your baby, and the others, and they will kill all of you. If you do not remove your hand, your baby will smother to death. Is it morally acceptable to smother your baby to death in order to save yourself and the other villagers?
Frying Fido. A family’s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. The family loved the dog. They
2

hear that dog meat is delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cook it and eat it for dinner.
Is this wrong – if so, can you say why?
The Flag. A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.
Is this wrong – if so, can you say why?
Incest: Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?
Funky Chicken. A man buys a dead chicken at the supermarket and then has sex with it before cleaning, cooking and eating it. Is this wrong – if so, can you say why?
Which decision is morally worse?
FIRST: A man is driving a new sports car. He has been waiting his entire life to buy it, and he loves the car. He sees a bleeding person on the side of the road, but decides not to take this person to hospital as it will ruin his seats.
SECOND: Another man has just been awarded a 2 million dollar bonus. He is already very wealthy, doesn’t need the money, and the bonus is for work he in fact contributed little to. He was recently traveling near a remote village, and saw the inhabitants were on the verge of starvation. He knows he could save 100 people by donating his bonus, but decides not to.
READ PARAGRAPHS 1-7 AND COME TO CLASS PREPARED TO DISCUSS.
Who is Pinker?
What kind of audience do you think he is writing for? (see par. 15 – digs at Volvo drivers)
What do you think of his title – how does it invite us to think about morality?
Do we usually think of morality as an instinct? How does thinking of morality as an instinct differ from the way we normally think of morality?
Why might thinking of morality as an instinct be controversial? Why might some people object to this?
What other terms and phrases does Pinker use to describe morality? What view of morality do these phrases/terms reflect? (morality as “instinct”: morality as “A SIXTH SENSE, the moral sense”; “These days, the moral law within is being viewed with increasing awe”; “The human moral sense turns out to be an organ of considerable complexity,” a “periodic table of elements” for morality, etc.)
3

What do you notice about the way Pinker addresses his audience, esp. his use of pronouns? Why do you think he does this?
Pinker begins by posing a question about 3 people (Mother Teresa, Gates, Borlaug). Why does he begin his argument this way? What does he think the “typical” answer to the question reveals?
Pinker suggests “a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers” (par. 2) Were you persuaded to rethink your answer?
Pinker suggests that we are vulnerable to “moral illusions.” Can you think of any other examples of
“moral illusions” – of cases where people are led to believe something is moral, but often cannot provide a good explanation as to why, or of moral beliefs that don’t seem to be supported by reasoning?
Pinker suggests that we are vulnerable to “moral illusions,” which are similar to “visual illusions.” Do you know what he means by “visual illusions”? [could show students some examples, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion ]
Does it make sense to compare “moral illusions” to “visual illusions”? In what ways might these two kinds of illusion be similar or dissimilar?
Author’s typically try to establish “exigency” or “significance” early on in their texts. This means establishing the importance of the topic, and suggesting the reader should care. It’s the unspoken answer to the “so what” question every reader brings to texts. Where does Pinker establish exigency – where does he suggest the issue he explores is really important? (SEE paragraphs 6 and 7)
An author’s main argument is often given in the introduction. Read Pinker’s introduction (pars. 1-7). Can you find what looks like a major claim?
What do you think of the “moral illusions” Pinker presents? How well do they support his case?
Pinker describes the “moral instinct” using several analogies. He compares morality to language, and he compares it to a physical sense, such as sight or taste. Explain these analogies – how is morality like a language, or like a physical sense?
Pinker suggests that misunderstanding and conflict between people in different societies is sometimes the result of focus on different “moral spheres,” or the application of different moral principles to a situation. He also argues that liberals and conservatives may disagree as they put different weight on different moral principles. Can you think of examples of what he is talking about?
What is “moral realism”? (paragraphs 53 – 56)
Pinker says we can “do better by knowing ourselves.” How does he think the insights provided by “the new moral science” can benefit people?
4

“The Moral Instinct” is divided up into 10 sections. After doing the pre-reading work and reading a short introductory text (e.g. Jones, “The Emerging Moral Psychology), have students examine the section headings and predict major claims for each section.
1.
Introduction
2.
The Moralization Switch
3.
Reasoning & Rationalizing
4.
A Universal Morality?
5.
The Varieties of Moral Experience
6.
The Genealogy of Morals
7.
Juggling the Spheres
8.
Is Nothing Sacred?
9.
Is Morality a Figment
10.
Doing Better by Knowing Ourselves
Assign groups of students one or two sections, and have them come to class and present their section.
You could have them use some of the questions in the handout “Questions to Ask Any Text.”
1.
Introduction
2.
The Moralization Switch
3.
Reasoning & Rationalizing
4.
A Universal Morality?
5.
The Varieties of Moral Experience
6.
The Genealogy of Morals
7.
Juggling the Spheres
8.
Is Nothing Sacred?
9.
Is Morality a Figment
10.
Doing Better by Knowing Ourselves
Read the following quotes from recent news stories. What moral “sphere” (or basic principle) described by Pinker seems to drive the problem?
1.
Pastor Charles L. Worley of Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, North Carolina, preaches against the “gay scourge” and suggests the government build an electric fence so "lesbians, queers and homosexuals" starve to death. “God have mercy. It makes me pukin' sick to think about — I don't even know whether or not to say this in the pulpit — can you imagine kissing
some man?...I figured a way to get rid of all the lesbians and queers," he says in his sermon, delivered on May 13. "Build a great, big, large fence — 150 or 100 mile long — put all the lesbians in there... Do the same thing for the queers and the homosexuals and have that fence electrified so they can't get out… And you know what, in a few years, they'll die." http://www.towleroad.com/2012/05/nc-pastor-wants-to-build-electrified-fence-to-contain-
5

starve-and-ultimately-kill-gays-video.html#ixzz1yXUS47Qc
2.
“Taliban Attack at Resort Hotel Near Kabul Kills 20”
QARGHA LAKE, Afghanistan — Twenty people were killed when seven Taliban militants shot their way into a much-visited lakeside resort here and took scores of hostages during an 11-hour siege, Afghan officials said on Friday. The 20 victims included the hotel’s manager, several private security guards and a police officer, officials said, and the seven attackers died as Afghan security forces battled into the compound. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack,
saying that Afghans drank alcohol there and that there was prostitution and dancing. “These
acts are illegal and strictly prohibited in Islam,” said Zabiullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman.
He added that: “Women dancers were sexually misused there.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/world/asia/26-die-as-afghan-forces-fight-taliban-athotel.html?hp&pagewanted=print
3.
Evangelical radio talk-show host Bryan Fischer, who hosts “Focal Point,” a popular Christian radio talk show, is one of the country’s most vocal opponents of what he calls “the homosexualrights movement.” As he puts it, “A rational culture that cares about its people will, in fact,
discriminate against adultery, pedophilia, rape, bestiality, and, yes, homosexual behavior.” http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/18/120618fa_fact_mayer#ixzz1yXWDcukN
4.
FIND QUOTES FROM CEO OF CHICK FIL-A, who talked about how condoning homosexuality is a challenge to the authority of God.

In paragraph 40 Pinker mentions Haidt’s research on the differing moral perspectives of liberals and conservatives. To explain this more fully, you could show this 18 minute TED talk by Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

In paragraph 57 Pinker mentions the idea that our evolving moral sense can lead to moral progress.
In a short 10 minute video, Jeremy Rifkin reinforces and expands this idea, and also presents some challenges to Pinker. http://www.thersa.org/events/video/archive/jeremy-rifkin-the-empathic-civilisation
TITLE. Closely examine the title. What does a title like “The Moral Instinct” suggest we can expect?
Echoes title of the book Pinker is best known for, The Language Instinct. (See intro notes. His other book, The Blank Slate is an attack on behaviorism, and defense of notion of innate faculties.) Implied analogy – just as language is innate, the same under all the exterior difference, same principles, etc., but realized differently in different cultures – so morality is an innate faculty with principles and parameters, but with different realizations in different cultures. LANGUE/PAROLE = COMPETENCE/PERFORMANCE.
6

Many NYT magazine readers will have read or be aware of that book, SO IT LETS READERS KNOW same kind of argument, but applied to morality.
ALSO – a little shocking. Do we usually think of morality as an instinct? We usually think of animals being born with instincts, and thus as being less rational than humans, more drive by their nature.
So how does this title invite us to see morality? Later he compares morality to our senses, and calls morality the 6 th sense. We see a small percentage of visible light spectrum. Dogs see black and white, other animals see thousands of colors we can’t. We have little control over this. Morality is like that?
ALSO perhaps suggest popular article. Contrast with title of Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. , “The moral mind:
How 5 sets of innate moral intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules”
First sentence: “Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable.”
Conversational style; directly addresses the reader. Suggests this is a popular article, not an academic text.
Consider first page of this – no conversational style – immediately situates work in terms of research literature.
“I doubt these examples will persuade anyone to favor Bill Gates over Mother Teresa for sainthood
TONE: “As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?” This is also conversational, informal, and performative – dramatically enacts the response of many readers.
Second paragraph: [2] “Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers.” Seeks to promote interactivity.
Begins with examples of “moral illusions” he will go on to discuss.
“But they show that our heads can be turned by an aura of sanctity, distracting us from a more objective reckoning of the actions that make people suffer or flourish.” [NOTE HOW he includes himself]
It seems we may all be vulnerable to moral illusions the ethical equivalent of the bending lines that trick the eye on cereal boxes and in psychology textbooks.
CATEGORIES, DEFINITIONS and FRAMING
“A SIXTH SENSE, the moral sense”
“These days, the moral law within is being viewed with increasing awe, if not always admiration.”
“The human moral sense turns out to be an organ of considerable complexity,”
TENSION BETWEEN friendly, informal, inclusive moves, and dictatorial ones
It’s not hard to see why the moral reputations of this trio should be so out of line
with the good they have done. (equivalent to “Of course…naturally. It goes without saying…”
The human moral sense turns out to be an organ of considerable complexity, with quirks that reflect its evolutionary history and its neurobiological foundations.
7

“Turns out to be”? Should say, “I want to argue that….” Or “important researchers have argued…” This view is still very controversial.
FINAL 2 PARS 1) establish exigency, and 2) present major claim, and 3) foreshadow argument to come, i.e. prolepsis
[6] These quirks are bound to have implications for the human predicament. Morality is not just any old topic in psychology but close to our conception of the meaning of life . Moral goodness is what gives each of us the sense that we are worthy human beings. We seek it in our friends and mates, nurture it in our children, advance it in our politics and justify it with our religions. A disrespect for morality is blamed for everyday sins and history’s worst atrocities. To carry this weight , the concept of morality would have to be bigger than any of us and outside all of us.
[7] So dissecting moral intuitions is no small matter. If morality is a mere trick of the brain, some may fear, our very grounds for being moral could be eroded. Yet as we shall see , the science of the moral sense can instead be seen as a way to strengthen those grounds, by clarifying what morality is and how it should steer our actions.
DIVISION OF ISSUES
Not between those who buy this perspective, and critics, but between those who fear its implications, i.e. that “our very grounds for being moral could be eroded” (presented as a
“fear,” an emotion, not a good reason). SEE PAGE 2.
If you give students the first 1-2 pages of the research articles below, they should be able to identify significant differences in the way the authors address the reader, think about audience, connect with other texts (situate themselves in relation to a research community), establish exigency, create ethos, present the major claim, use metalanguage, foreshadow/use prolepsis, etc.
Note how both articles are designed for a busy reader who can find the key info quickly. Both have keywords, an abstract, and go right into providing overview of argument, evidence, contribution, etc. They assume readers are insiders, and situate work in relation to other researchers. (NOTE HOW Pinker addresses reader directly, is interactive, dramatic, etc.)
The introduction from two articles are on the wiki https://sdsuwriting.pbworks.com/w/file/56522632/contrast%20pinker%20academic%20intros.pdf
The texts are
1. “Moral Principles or Consumer Preferences? Alternative Framings of the Trolley Problem. Rai, Tage S.,
Keith J. Holyoak.”
2. The Intelligence of the Moral Intuitions: Comment on Haidt (2001) David A. Pizarro and Paul Bloom.
Psychological Review 2003, Vol. 110, No. 1, 193–196.
8