UNIT TWO TEACHING MATERIALS
Table of Contents
PINKER – Schedule & Class Plan Ideas ............................................................................................. 3
Describing relationships between texts ....................................................................................... 5
Prompt & Guidelines for Organization of Paper 2....................................................................... 7
RUBRIC (& possible Peer Review form) for Project 2................................................................. 8
RUBRIC 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Pinker Pre-Reading Questions/Moral Dilemmas........................................................................... 13
Moral Foundations Questionnaire ............................................................................................ 15
Pinker Jeopardy Questions ........................................................................................................ 17
Pinker Discussion Questions...................................................................................................... 19
Applying Pinker to News Stories ............................................................................................... 20
Argument Map For Pinker ......................................................................................................... 23
DRAFTING BODY PARAGRAPHS................................................................................................. 24
Template phrases: ....................................................................................................................... 26
Templates for Introducing all Three Authors ............................................................................ 27
MODEL: Tough, KIPP Schools, & Chapter 9 ............................................................................... 31
Prospectus for Paper 2 (1 -2 pages) ........................................................................................... 33
Framework for Body paragraphs ............................................................................................... 34
Framework for Body paragraphs + Sample Body paragraphs ................................................. 37
Sample body paragraphs CHARTED (Uses Chua) ..................................................................... 40
More Sample Body Paragraphs – Healthcare ............................................................................ 41
More Sample Body Paragraphs................................................................................................... 41
DECODER RING/MAP FOR (MUCH) ACADEMIC WRITING/RESEARCH ................................. 43
Basic Peer Review ........................................................................................................................ 45
Full Peer Review .......................................................................................................................... 46
Sample Papers .............................................................................................................................. 49
Sample Pinker Draft #1 .......................................................................................................... 49
Sample Pinker Draft #2 .......................................................................................................... 53
Sample Pinker Draft #3 .......................................................................................................... 55
Sample Pinker Draft #4 .......................................................................................................... 58
Words for Signaling Connections ............................................................................................... 62
THE KEY TO DOING WELL ON ASSIGNMENT 2............................................................................... 67
WRITING TIPS FOR PINKER PAPER ................................................................................................. 68
PINKER – Schedule & Class Plan Ideas
Week 1: Introducing Pinker
Pre-reading/open discussion of questions related to origins and nature of morality
- (“Where does our sense of morality come from? Are moral principles “innate” – are we all born
with a kind of moral compass?” Etc.)
- Discuss sample “moral dilemma” questions (trolleys, crying babies, frying Fido, etc.)
- Discuss “Moral Foundations” questionnaire (or yourmorals.org). Give student sample
questions, and have them answer alone. Then in groups, compile results, and do averages for
class. Compare to results from other countries/groups.
Interviews/Videos/Short Texts to Intro the Topic
- RADIO LAB discussion of morality. ~ 29 minutes. Nice, simple overview of the research, with
some fun examples and interviews. http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/
- Radio Interview with Pinker about his article "The Moral Instinct" (NPR's Talk of the Nation, Jan
28, 2008, 30 minutes) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18482797
Animated video of Rifkin talk, “The Empathic Civilisation”
http://www.thersa.org/events/video/archive/jeremy-rifkin-the-empathic-civilisation
- “The emerging moral psychology” by Dan Jones
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/theemergingmoralpsychology/
Brooks, “The End of Philosophy.” Op-ed about study of morality from evolutionary
perspective, and “Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal.” NICHOLAS KRISTOF, NYT,
May 27, 2009.
Jigsaw researching rhetorical situation (Pinker, NYT Magazine, etc.) and references Mother
Teresa, Borlaug, etc.)
Chart Pinker – work through initial sections (see teaching materials)
Guided reading and discussion questions for first sections – point students to key terms, key
analogies (e.g. How does Pinker establish exigency? What do you notice about the way Pinker
addresses his audience, esp. his use of pronouns? What terms, phrases and analogies does
Pinker use to describe morality? Etc.)
Group work – assign 3 students for each of the 10 sections, and have them present to the class.
They will discuss a) main claims, b) evidence, c) ideas for connecting outside texts d) anything
they found unclear, difficult, particularly interesting/persuasive/weak.
Week 2: Exploring the Claims and Evidence
Explain assignment 2 - give prompt, grading rubric (if being used) and show sample student
papers.
Continue charting sections.
Continue group work –students presenting on each of the 10 sections.
Do argument map
Work on drafting account of claim that students most interested in exploring
further/challenging
Using template phrases
Week 3: Making Connections & Drafting Paper
Show Haidt video and discuss how it connects and extends Pinker
Jonathan Haidt’s "On the moral roots of liberals and conservatives" is an 18 minute video on
evolution of morality, and how "ratios" of "universal" moral principles are differently balanced
by conservatives and liberals. Have students examine how it connects with and extends Pinker.
(Haidt's work is a big part of Pinker's argument)
How Blogs Connect: Have students read blog posts that debate Pinker, esp. the comments
section. For example, these comments on Pinker by Dawkins readers’ could be used to model
the assignment http://richarddawkins.net/articles/2123-the-moral-instinct
Library Day
Comparing Arguments and Introductions
You could examine the abstracts and introductions from 2 academic articles (“Moral Principles
or Consumer Preferences? Alternative Framings of the Trolley Problem,” and “The Intelligence
of the Moral Intuitions” http://goo.gl/vhdL7 ) If you give students the first 1-2 pages of these
research articles, 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 major claims, use
metalanguage, etc. Then discuss how these 2 texts each challenge and complicate Pinker’s
claims.
If you wish, discuss how complicate, extend, etc. connect with aspects of academic discourse
(CARS)
Use “Unit 2 Collected Drafting Materials” – templates, framework for body paragraphs, sample
body paragraphs, prospectus, etc.
Hand in prospectus – map of paper, plus annotated bibliography
Week 4: Drafting
Workshop drafts
Peer review
Describing relationships between texts
How texts “extend,” “complicate,” “illustrate,” “challenge,” or “qualify” other
texts
Academic writing requires that you build arguments using multiple texts. To do this
effectively, you will want to describe the relationships between these different texts.
Extend: When a source advances, develops, expands, or take further some element
of an existing argument, we say that the source extends an argument.
 Extending an argument involves presenting additional evidence or reasons that
are in line with the original argument but go beyond it.
Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source extends a text include:
Gives additional evidence, develops, elaborates, expands, extrapolates, teases out,
advances, takes further, provides additional evidence/support, supplements, etc.
Complicate: When a source presents evidence, arguments or claims that are at
odds with an author’s position, suggesting that the position needs to be qualified, we
say that one text complicates another.
 Complicating an author’s argument is not quite the same as disagreeing with
it, although disagreement may be involved.
 It usually involves suggesting that an author has not dealt with the full
complexity of an issue, has failed to consider relevant evidence, or that there is
a gap, shortcoming or limitation in an author’s account.
 Complicating an argument may involve exposing problems, contradictions, or
presenting counterexamples and counterarguments that challenge some part
of the argument.
Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source complicates a text
include:
challenges, contradicts, disagrees, locates problems with, identifies shortcomings,
notes that X fails to account for, notes that X ignores A, suggests that X’s account is
exaggerated, is vulnerable to counterarguments/counterexamples, rests on several
highly questionable assumptions
Qualify: When a source presents evidence/claims that suggest an author’s
argument goes too far, is too strong, or overgeneralizes, we say it qualifies the
author’s argument. When a source limits the scope or extent of claims in an
argument, we say that the source qualifies the argument.
Example of unqualified argument: All video games incite violence and should be
banned.
Qualified argument: Miller asserts that certain extreme video games may desensitize
impressionable young people to violence and advocates a ban on these types of games.
However, Jenkins points to evidence from MIT demonstrating that most games are
innocent fun and may even teach useful skills. Nevertheless, he acknowledges Miller’s
concerns and suggests that only games that realistically simulate murder should be
banned. In addition, he limits the ban to children under the age of 14. Thus, Jenkins
qualifies Miller’s claims.
Challenge: when a source directly contradicts or challenges an author’s position.
Illustrate: When a source provides examples, additional evidence, cases or
arguments that help explain a position we say that the source illustrates an argument.
 Illustrating an argument means to present additional examples that illustrate or
support a claim or argument. The illustration may not be explicitly
mentioned by the original author.
Some verbs you might use to describe the way a source clarifies or illustrates a
text include: illuminates, exemplifies, explicates, confirms, supports, etc.
NOTE: As with most sets of terms, there is some overlap between them. For
example, something that illustrates an argument may also clarify it. An element of
an argument can thus do more than one thing. The important thing is to try to
figure out the general relationship between texts/parts of texts.
EXAMPLE: While Chua sees conflict between ethnicities in developing countries as
driven largely by globalization and democratization, others believe that poor
government is the main culprit. In “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict,” John Bowden
argues that many countries composed of diverse ethnic groups have avoided conflict
because their governments have created “multiethnic coalitions” which encourage
different groups to “seek the large electoral middle ground.” The countries he uses as
examples are all democracies. Bowden thus complicates Chua’s argument by
suggesting that democracy, properly run, can prevent ethnic violence, and that the
solution is thus renewed commitment to democracy rather than a retreat from it. This
contrasts with Chua, who believes that in countries where there is a “market dominant
minority,” popular majorities always tend toward ethnocentrism, and some form of
“backlash” is very likely. Bowden, on the other hand, believes that ethnic conflict
exists only when ethnicities are left out of the power structure, or when destructive
“political choices” are made. He acknowledges that cultural diversity does present
challenges to peace, and that certain other factors can make conflict likely. …However,
Bowden insists that democracy and globalization do not lead inevitably to the
kind of problems Chua outlines, and that we must focus on the underlying factors
that are the real drivers of violence. Bowden thus complicates Chua’ argument in
several ways; firstly, he presents evidence that is at odds with Chua’s thesis, and
which can be read as questioning the extent to which it is true. Secondly, Bowden’s
article suggests that Chua’s position is overstated and needs to be severely
qualified. Lastly, Bowden’s article suggests that Chua has failed to deal with the
full complexity of what causes ethnic violence in developing countries.
Prompt & Guidelines for Organization of Paper 2
ASSIGNMENT PROMPT
Length 7 – 8 pages
In “The Moral Instinct,” Harvard University psychology professor Stephen Pinker claims that our
moral sense comes primarily from evolution, is largely “instinctual,” and that there may be a
limited number of universal moral “principles.” He suggests that recent scientific research
provides important new ways of thinking about morality – how morality evolved, how it operates,
and how humans engage in “moral reasoning.” For this paper you will select at least two outside
texts that make arguments that connect with those of Food Inc. You will use these texts to
illustrate, clarify, challenge, qualify, extend, or complicate one of the arguments advanced in
“The Moral Instinct.”
Criteria for Evaluation:
1. accurately describe the author’s project and argument
2. signal the topic and give a clear indication of how the paper will proceed
3. locate claims and/or evidence from (at least) 2 outside sources that connect with Pinker’s
argument
4. analyze these claims/evidence in order to show how they illustrate, clarify, extend, or
complicate arguments found in Pinker
5. present evidence that explains in detail how these texts illustrate, clarify, extend, or
complicate Pinker’s arguments
6. use an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one idea to the next and be
thoroughly edited so that sentences are readable and appropriate for an academic paper
BREAKDOWN/ORGANIZATION
Introduction
 Introduce the topic/establish exigency, significance, or advance a “centrality claim”
 Introduce the rhetorical context of “The Moral Instinct”.
o (think Rhetorical Situation: author, text, context, audience, purpose)
 Briefly introduce Pinker’s project & argument.
 Metadiscourse – explain YOUR purpose and project (what your paper will do)
State the direction of your analysis and the steps you will take to get there. (For
example, “In my analysis of Pinker’s text I will examine [what?] and argue
[what?].”) (This orients the reader, but can also be where you reveal your own
stance.)
Body
1. State one of Pinker’s claims and briefly describe how he supports the claim.
2. Give a salient example, and nail your example with a quote.
3. Explain the quotation by telling what he is doing, and delineating the ways it ties back to
his argument.
4. Introduce the outside text/author, and explain how the secondary text can be read as
extending, complicating, challenging, illustrating, or qualifying Pinker’s argument. Use
quotes and examples from both Pinker & the outside text to support your analysis.
5. Explain and/or discuss the significance of the connection
Conclusion: This is the “so what, who cares?” part of your essay. You have several options. You
can
 Consider as a whole what the other texts DO to Pinker’s claims.



Consider the strengths/weaknesses, and effectiveness of Pinker’s claims and strategies.
Comment on how this argument has affected you as an individual and/or how it might
affect other viewers.
Discuss where this analysis leads you – what position do you know have on the issue?
RUBRIC (& possible Peer Review form) for Project 2
Student __________________________________
Project #2
Points
Possible
15
5
45
RWS 100 Grading Rubric for
Criteria
Introduces topic at hand, and author. Gives an account of Pinker’s
overall argument and project.
Comments:
Has a clear thesis statement which makes an argument and indicates
how the paper will proceed. (metadiscourse)
Comments:
Analyzes one of Pinker’s arguments through the lens of outside texts
and demonstrates explicitly how it is being complicated, extended,
qualified, challenged or illustrated. Does not merely give general
discussion of what texts are “about,” but makes genuine connections
using verbs and phrases from the reader. Comments:
10
Describes/summarizes connections between the texts and the
significance of these connections; discusses what has been learned
about the topic, as well as arguments and how they can be complicated,
illustrated, qualified, or extended. (Conclusion)
Comments:
10
Uses an effective structure that carefully guides the reader from one
idea to the next (smoothly integrates information and evidence from
two sources and “The Moral Instinct,” and transitions between
sentences and paragraphs).
Comments:
5
Implements academic stylistic conventions, to include: sentences and
paragraphs are cohesive, fully developed, unified and focused. All
quotations are introduced, integrated, and explained.
Comments:
Draft
Final
10
Carefully edited for grammatical errors as well as typos.
Paper/Works Cited page follows MLA format (lack of careful
proofreading and MLA format can result in the loss of up to 10 points).
Comments:
Total
Possible
100
Final Comments
Your
Total
RUBRIC 2
Student __________________________________
Project #2
Points
15
60
10
15
Total
RWS 100 Grading Rubric for
Criteria
INTRODUCTION:
1. Introduces topic/gets reader’s attention.
2. Provides an overview of Pinker, his project and argument.
3. Describes your project/what the paper will do (metadiscourse). May include brief
description of two/three outside texts and how the paper will use them to analyze
Pinker (can make this part of body section instead if prefer).
BODY:
1. Clearly and fully describes one of Pinker’s claims so that a reader unfamiliar with
the text can understand it.
2. Includes at least one quotation to support your interpretation of the claim – quote
is introduced, integrated and explicitly explained (e.g. “What the author is saying
here is…in other words…”)
3. Transitions from “The Moral Instinct” to outside text (e.g. “Pinker clearly wants
the audience to believe X…However, author Z provides a useful point of contrast,
and
can be read as extending/complicating etc. Pinker’s claim…”)
4. Briefly introduces first outside text, author and project. Clearly and fully describes
the claim or evidence so that a reader unfamiliar with the text can understand it.
5. Includes at least one quotation to support your reading of this claim/evidence –
quote is introduced, integrated and explicitly explained (e.g. “What outside text Z is
saying here is…in other words…”)
6. Analyzes in detail how the outside text can be read as complicating, extending,
illustrating, or qualifying a claim found in the movie. This will require you to
provide an interpretation of how the text can be read, and present your case, i.e.
support your interpretation (“I would like to suggest that this claim complicates
Pinker because it presents evidence that undermines aspect X of the claim…author
A’s article can also be read as exposing a blindspot in Pinker’s position, something
he fails to consider…For example, while Pinker says Z, author A points to
X…author A writes…This clearly shows C”). Imagine you are trying to convince a
jury – you must do everything you can to be as persuasive as possible. MOST
IMPORTANT PART OF PAPER!
Score
(REPEATS 1-6 FOR EACH OUTSIDE TEXT BEING DISCUSSED)
CONCLUSION: summarizes connections between the texts & the significance of
these connections; discusses what has been learned about the topic, and/or how
arguments can be complicated, illustrated, clarified, or extended.
MECHANICS/FORMATTING: Maintains focus, keeps cohesion tight, ideas are
fully developed, transitions guide reader (see “Rules of Thumb” handout/handbook)
- maintains focus within paragraphs
- transitions clearly between ideas/sections
- creates coherence within sentences and paragraphs
- Carefully edited for grammatical errors as well as typos. (Each typo or new
grammatical error will result in the loss of one point, not to exceed 5 points).
- Paper/Works Cited properly formatted – MLA, APA or format used in your major
Your
100
Total
Pinker Pre-Reading Questions/Moral Dilemmas
Discussion 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 (society, family, national culture,
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, is this like/unlike human morality?
9. To what extent is morality dependent on religion?
Moral Dilemmas – what to make of them?
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 emotion than by reason or 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
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 refugees 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 people? Why/why not?
Frying Fido. A family’s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. The family loved the
dog. They 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?
Defend 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?
Read the 2 scenarios below. Is one decision morally worse? Why?
FIRST: A man is driving an expensive 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.
PROSTITUTION – some people describe prostitution as a “victimless crime,” and argue it
should be legalized.
Is prostitution wrong? Why?
Is it always wrong, or can you imagine circumstances in which it could be acceptable?
What moral principles do you think best apply to discussions of prostitution.
Example: a man whose wife is crippled doesn’t want to cheat on her but has needs, so goes
to see a prostitute. Is this wrong? Or just less wrong that “traditional” cases?
Every year Americans die on waiting lists for organ donations. Should people be able to
pay for organs? That is, should we allow a market in organ donation?
Should people be able to pay to adopt children? If so, why? If not, why not?
Moral Foundations Questionnaire
The following questions are from the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. You can use the
excerpts below to poll students on their answers to moral questions, or you can have
students go online and do the survey, and report back.
Part 1. When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the
following considerations relevant to your thinking? Please answer on a scale from
Not At All Relevant (This consideration has nothing to do with my judgments of right and
wrong) to Extremely Relevant (This is one of the most important factors when I judge
right and wrong
Pinker Jeopardy Questions
(this is the text version of a powerpoint game you can use in class – see wiki.)
Main Claim
With the title of his article, Pinker claims this is the basis of morality. Instinct.
When people are asked to judge the morality of celebrities, they do not rely on this.
Reasoning.
When presented with moral dilemmas, people cannot explain what? Their moral
choices.
Name one factor that does influence how we judge others’ morality. Possible
answers: wearing white clothing, religious behavior, public appeals for charity.
Name of the man compared with Bill Gates and Mother Theresa in Pinker’s opening.
Norman Borlaug, green revolution architect.
Biological basis
During the trolley problems involving direct harm to others, FMRI of brains shows
what is occurring? Conflict between different regions.
De Waal’s studies of chimpanzees given cucumbers rather than grapes for the same
task showed they have a sense of what? Fairness.
De Waal’s studies of chimpanzees given a task where they must cooperate to get
food, even when one of them is not hungry, showed they have a sense of what?
Empathy.
Elephants asked to cooperate pulling ropes to get food usually do, but one cheated
by doing what? Standing on the rope.
Studies of such animals as chimpanzees and elephants, which show they have some
moral traits, supports what aspect of human morals? Evolution (from morality in
animal ancestors).
Spheres and emphases
Pinker says that there are how many spheres of morality? Five.
Haidt’s work on surveys with the trolley problem and similar dilemmas shows
conservatives and liberals agree on what? Harm and Fairness spheres.
Name two morality spheres that are de-emphasized by liberals. Possible answers:
Purity, community, authority/obedience
Mother Theresa probably appeals to what spheres in her appearance of morality?
Purity, community
How do people change their emphasis on certain spheres? Either or both:
Moralization or demoralization
Trolley Problems
Pinker explains that when people are faced with throwing a lever to cause one
rather than five deaths, they usually choose what? Lever (or One)
When people could save five from a runaway trolley by throwing someone on the
track, what do they decide, throwing or inaction? Inaction
Different choices when faced with the same numerical odds of saving life shows that
people don’t use what in choosing moral actions? Logic (reasoning)
The underlying principle in throwing someone on the tracks in the Trolley Problem
seems to be what a violation of what sphere of morality, according to Pinker? Harm
or hurt.
The Trolley Problem has been criticized as neglecting several factors that could
influence how a person would choose. From class discussion of other sources, name
one such factor. Possible answers: Relative’s life, affiliation with same group as
some of the people, knowing versus not knowing them.
Future of morality
What does Pinker say people might think about morality if it’s an instinct? Shaky.
What basis of morality does Pinker see as having lost force today? Religion
If animals are moral, what possible basis of morality is most incompatible with that?
Religions that claim humans are special creations in the image of god.
In experiments, animals are generous even when they won’t get a reward. What
does Pinker think they might gain? Future good will.
Why does Pinker think that morality will not erode if people accept a biological
basis rather than a religious one? Knowing the basis will increase self-knowledge.
Bonus question:
Give the name of the endowed chair that Steven Pinker holds at Harvard University.
Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology.
Daily Double 1:
Pinker’s claims of evolution of morality are based on experiments by what scientist?
Frans de Waal
Daily Double 2:
Pinker’s claims of five spheres of morality are largely based on surveys and analysis
by what scientist?
Jonathan Haidt
Pinker Discussion Questions
1. What do you think of his title – how does it invite us to think about morality?
2. 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?
3. Why might thinking of morality as an instinct be controversial? Why might some people
object to this?
4. List all the other terms and phrases Pinker uses to describe morality. What view of
morality do these phrases/terms reflect?
5. 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?
6. What do you notice about the way Pinker addresses his audience, esp. his use of
pronouns? Why do you think he does this?
7. 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?
8. Pinker suggests “a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers” (par. 2) Were
you persuaded to rethink your answer?
9. 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?
10. 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?
11. Pinker suggests that we are vulnerable to “moral illusions,” which are similar to “visual
illusions.” Do you know what he means by “visual illusions”?
12. Does it make sense to compare “moral illusions” to “visual illusions”? In what ways
might these two kinds of illusion be similar or dissimilar? What do you think of the
“moral illusions” Pinker presents? How well do they support his case?
13. 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?
14. 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?
15. What is “moral realism”? (paragraphs 53 – 56)
16. Pinker says we can “do better by knowing ourselves.” How does he think the insights
provided by “the new moral science” can benefit people?
Applying Pinker to News Stories
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-pastorwants-to-build-electrified-fence-to-contain-starve-and-ultimately-kill-gaysvideo.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-talibanat-hotel.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 homosexual-rights 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#ixzz1yXWDc
ukN
Group Work: Assign 3 students to summarize, and identify claims,
evidence and strategies for each of the sections of Pinker listed below.
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
Argument Map For Pinker
DRAFTING BODY PARAGRAPHS
MAKING THE CONNECTION: BODY PARAGRAPH TEMPLATE, Project 2
1. Articulate your topic sentence by indicating what you’re going to do in this paragraph.
Make sure to transition from previous paragraph, though that can be added later.
2. State central claim under investigation in this paragraph. Give us a solid
example/quote/phrase of this claim in the central text, and explain the quotation.
3. Transition into secondary source. Explain how the secondary text relates to the claim in
the central text.
4. Introduce secondary source contextually: author, title of essay/article and publication, and
the project and argument.
5. Secondary source claim (in an example/quote/paraphrase) that you will use for analysis
6. Analyze the example/quote/paraphrase, explaining why it is meaningful (bottom half of
your “quotation sandwich”
7. The HOW/WHY. Return to central text (Pinker). How does this information connect to
the central text? [The outside source] challenges/illustrates/extends/qualifies/complicates
Pinker’s claim OR argument because …
8. How is this significant? Explain how the evidence from both central and secondary
sources affects the claim and why this evidence is significant. This is where you answer
the questions: So what? Who cares? Use templates from Chapter 7 of They Say/I Say (9195).
TEMPLATE + SAMPLE BODY PARAGRAPH
(Bolded words are templates taken from They Say/I Say)
1. Articulate your topic sentence by indicating what you’re going to do in this paragraph.
Make sure to transition from previous paragraph, though that can come later.
In the chapter, “Rice Paddies and Math Tests,” Gladwell focuses on the stereotype that Asians
are good at math.
2. State central text (Gladwell) claim under investigation in this paragraph. Give us a solid
example/quote/phrase of this claim in the central text.
Gladwell first points to the difference in number-naming systems between languages. This,
Gladwell claims, allows Asian children to count faster and perform basic functions like addition
easier than their American counterparts (229). He then brings in the rice paddy culture of many
Asian countries, claiming that working a rice field is “ten to twenty times more labor intensive
than working on an equivalent-size corn or wheat field” (235). Gladwell’s point is that the
combination of these two—an advantage in number-naming systems and a cultural legacy of
incredible work ethic—is precisely what allows Asians to be successful at math.
3. Transition into secondary source. What is the common ground between the two texts? Or,
put another way, how does the secondary text relate to the claim in the central text?
Gladwell is not the only one who’s examined the Asian proclivity towards math.
4. Introduce secondary source contextually: author, title of essay/article and publication, and
the project and argument.
New York Times writer Michael Winerip explored this subject in his 2005 column, “For
Immigrant Students, Math is One Road to Success.” Winerip had looked in his hometown
newspaper to find a photo of his former high school’s math club, “[Seventeen] of 18 members
were Asian. Mathematically, it made no sense. Quincy High is 22 percent Asian; why is the math
club 94.4 percent Asian?” After interviewing teachers and students, he argues that Asians
gravitate to math because “it’s their best shot to excel in a new land” (Winerip).
5. Secondary source claim (in an example/quote/paraphrase) that you will use for analysis
Most interestingly, many of the students said they thrived in math classes because it was one of
the few subjects where their grappling with English didn’t hinder them. In fact, the math courses
and school club helped to build their confidence and provide a community of other immigrants
with whom they could connect (Winerip).
6. Analyze the example/quote/paraphrase, explaining why it is meaningful (bottom half of
your “quotation sandwich”
In essence, these students are saying that their motivation for math is rooted in the desire to
adapt and succeed in America.
7. The HOW/WHY. Return to central text (Gladwell). How does this information connect to
the central text? [The outside source] challenges/illustrates/extends/qualifies/complicates
Gladwell’s claim OR argument because …
Though his evidence is anecdotal, Winerip’s article complicates Gladwell’s claim because he
offers another explanation for Asian students’ math success. While Gladwell would point to their
home languages and cultural legacies, the students in Winerip’s article are much more motivated
by their immediate social surroundings.
8. How is this significant? Explain how the evidence from both central and secondary
sources affects the claim and why this evidence is significant. This is where you answer
the questions: So what? Who cares? Use templates from Chapter 7 of They Say/I Say (9195).
On one hand, readers might say that the students in Winerip’s article are evidence of another
stereotype—that teenagers are more concerned with their social status and thus they could be
overlooking their innate cultural legacy. But on the other hand, these students make readers
question how much cultural legacy functions on a daily basis when the desire to belong, rather
than the desire to work hard, is primary. In fact, the article implied that the white students
interested in the math club don’t stay long in the club because it has become the “de facto Asian
social club” and feel as if they don’t belong (Winerip).
Sample, in paragraph form:
In the chapter, “Rice Paddies and Math Tests,” Gladwell focuses on the stereotype that Asians
are good at math. Gladwell first points to the difference in number-naming systems between
languages. This, he claims, allows Asian children to count faster and perform basic functions like
addition easier than their American counterparts (229). He then brings in the rice paddy culture
of many Asian countries, claiming that working a rice field is “ten to twenty times more labor
intensive than working on an equivalent-size corn or wheat field” (235). Gladwell’s point is that
the combination of these two—an advantage in number-naming systems and a cultural legacy of
incredible work ethic—is precisely what allows Asians to be successful at math.
Gladwell is not the only one who’s examined the Asian proclivity towards math. New York
Times writer Michael Winerip explored this subject in his 2005 column, “For Immigrant
Students, Math is One Road to Success.” Winerip had looked in his hometown newspaper to find
a photo of his former high school’s math club, “[Seventeen] of 18 members were Asian.
Mathematically, it made no sense. Quincy High is 22 percent Asian; why is the math club 94.4
percent Asian?” After interviewing teachers and students, he argues that Asians gravitate to
math because “it’s their best shot to excel in a new land” (Winerip). Most interestingly, many of
the students said they thrived in math classes because it was one of the few subjects where their
grappling with English didn’t hinder them. In fact, the math courses and school club helped to
build their confidence and provide a community of other immigrants with whom they could
connect (Winerip). In essence, these students are saying that their motivation for math is rooted
in the desire to adapt and succeed in America.
Though his evidence is anecdotal, Winerip’s article complicates Gladwell’s claim
because he offers another explanation for Asian students’ math success. While Gladwell would
point to their home languages and cultural legacies, the students in Winerip’s article are much
more motivated by their immediate social surroundings. On one hand, readers might say that the
students in Winerip’s article are evidence of another stereotype—that teenagers are more
concerned with their social status and thus they could be overlooking their innate cultural legacy.
But on the other hand, these students make readers question how much cultural legacy functions
on a daily basis when the desire to belong, rather than the desire to work hard, is primary. In
fact, the article implied that the white students interested in the math club don’t stay long in the
club because it has become the “de facto Asian social club” and feel as if they don’t belong
(Winerip).
Template phrases:
1) Author, term (illustrates, clarifies, extends, complicates), Pinker’s claim (insert
chosen claim), by…(cite evidence from the author’s text).
2) Author, term (illustrates, etc) the matter/claim/idea/concept further by
stating/asserting/revealing…(cite evidence from the supplementary text).
3) Pinker’s claim regarding (insert claim), is (insert appropriate term), by (author), in
his/her article/editorial/book (insert attribution phrase), as he/she
states/claims/argues/queries, (insert author’s claim).
4) If the text is ‘doing’ more than one thing to Pinker’s argument: Not only does
(state the author)’s claim regarding (insert author’s claim) + (appropriate term)
Pinker’s argument of (insert Pinker’s claim), it also (insert correlating term) this idea
by (cite additional evidence from the author’s text). OR
In addition to (insert appropriate term) Pinker’s argument concerning (insert Pinker’s
claim), (author’s name) + also (correlating term) the argument by (cite additional
evidence from the author’s text).
Example using template:
1) Author, Michael Cannon, complicates Michael Moore’s argument for a ‘right’ to
universal health care, by revealing important issues not considered by Moore,
including financial strain and provision of extensive medical care.
3) Moore’s claim regarding the failure of profit-based health insurance companies
to protect their clients, is extended by a staff writer from KMBC-TV in Kansas
City, when he provides a follow-up on Julie Pierce’s devastating testimonial,
debuted in Moore’s film, of losing her husband to cancer after he was denied life-
saving treatments. KMBC-TV claims that Moore’s documentary gave Pierce “a
voice and a stage.”
4) In addition to illustrating Moore’s argument concerning the excessive price tags
of poor health-insurance plans, and the need for drastic modification of our
current system, author Scott Shore, in his article, “The Nightmare of Universal
Health Care,” complicates Moore’s argument by claiming that universal healthcare is not the appropriate solution for our health-care mess.
TEMPLATE # 2
Author A complicates Author B’s argument by ______________, _______________, and
____________________.
Author A suggests that Author B fails to ______________________.
Author A acknowledges that Author B is_________________________ yet Author B still does not/does
not address _____________________________________________.
Although Author A agrees with Author B that ____________________ he/she (refutes/counters/rebuts)
_________________________.
Author A’s assertion contrasts with Authors B’s claim that ___________________
Templates for Introducing all Three Authors
The following templates may be helpful when you’re introducing all three authors.

Both of these authors examine issues similar to the ones Pinker discusses.
________________ addresses the issue of ________________, and (clarifies,
illustrates, etc) Pinker’s argument by __________________________.
_________________ discusses the idea of _______________________, and
(clarifies, illustrates, etc) his analysis of _______________ by showing
__________________________.

Both authors address issues related to Pinker’s argument, but in different ways.
__________________ offers an alternate viewpoint of ______________ portion
of Pinker’s argument (cause of the problem, solution, etc). He/she (illustrates,
complicates, etc) his idea by ________________________. In contrast,
_________________ addresses the portion of Pinker’s argument that deals with
____________________ (effects, solutions, etc). He/she (clarifies, illustrates,
etc) his idea by _____________________________.

All three authors are concerned with the issue of _______________________.
Pinker addresses ____________’s opinions in his article, saying
______________________. _______________’s writing (clarifies, illustrates,
etc) Pinker’s because _________________________. The third author,
_______________, (clarifies, illustrates, etc) both of them because
_______________________.
Sample Body Paragraphs Using Rifkin
Disclaimer: These paragraphs are taken from multiple sources. They are meant to show
examples of possible body paragraphs, which students should analyze to decide what
works and what doesn't. Not all paragraphs are good models.
Intro: In "A Change of Heart About Animals," a 2003 editorial published in the Los Angeles
Times, Jeremy Rifkin argues that new research calls into question many of the boundaries
commonly thought to exist between humans and other animals. As a consequence, he suggests
that humans should expand their empathy for animals and treat them better. To support this
argument, Rifkin points to studies suggesting that animals can acquire language, use tools, exhibit
self-awareness, anticipate death, and pass on knowledge from one generation to the next. Rifkin's
argument provides a much-needed expansion of human empathy "to include the broader
community of creatures" (Rifkin 16). However, a logical extension of Rifkin's argument requires
that humans anthropomorphically proscribe all characteristics of human emotions on animals in
ways that are not supported by similar studies. In order to more clearly define the limits of similar
emotions in humans and animals, I will here outline the lack of guilt, morality, and spiritual faith
in animals.
Potential body paragraphs
Body Paragraph A: A researcher at Barnard College, Andrea Horowitz writes about a study
that was done on dogs to determine where "the guilty look" comes from (Horowitz 447). In her
article, she says that the guilty look is something that humans perceive, but that dogs actually
emit as a response to owner behavior rather than any prior obedience or disobedience. This
disagrees with Rifkin, because he claims that animals and humans share similar emotions.
Body Paragraph B: In a recent study at Barnard College, dogs who exhibited signs of "the
guilty look" were tested to see if the look came as a result of animal disobedience or owner
behavior (Horowitz 447). Guilt is an emotion that is often described as differentiating humans
from animals. The results of this study indicate that dogs give the guilty look based on the cues
their owners give them rather than any connection with their own disobedience (Horowitz 448).
This proves that Rifkin's argument may be limited to baser emotions like excitement, grief, and
stress - emotions that are instinctual and not of a higher order.
Body Paragraph C: Rifkin's argument examines several emotions that many might claim are
instinctual; several critics have argued that excitement, grief, and stress are often impulsive
emotions rather than ones achieved through reflection. Considering that animals do share some
emotions, it is natural on this basis alone to extend our empathy to animals that feel other
instinctual emotions - like pain - and to develop better practices accordingly. However, an
examination of reflective emotions reveals limits in the connections between humans and
animals. In a recent study at Barnard College, researchers demonstrated the false attribution of the
feeling of guilt to dogs who had exhibited disobedient behavior. In an article describing the study,
Andrea Horowitz concludes that the results "highlight the priority, instead [of guilt based on
disobedience], of the human's behaviour over the evidence of wrongdoing" (Horowitz 450). In
other words, the study indicates that the appearance of guilt arises as an instinctual reaction to
human cues rather than any self-reflection on the dogs' part on the act in question. This is
significant for two reasons: first, because it indicates a common misattribution of human
emotions to animals on the part of pet owners, and secondly because it demonstrates the limits of
Rifkin's argument in applying only to instinctual emotions rather than reflective emotions.
MODEL: Tough, KIPP Schools, & Chapter 9
Tough’s “What It Takes to Make a Student” is useful in that it discusses many of the same
issues, people and programs that Gladwell does in chapter 9, but provides a much more
complicated account, and provides many other factors to consider.
Gladwell says that KIPP schools have succeeded “by taking the idea of cultural legacies
seriously.” Yet the Tough article suggests that this isn’t the only or even the main reason KIPP
schools succeed.
 Tough quotes Levin, co-founder of KIPP schools and the superintendent of the four New
York City schools. Levin states that more important than the behavioral conditioning
(SLANTT) is the “less visible practices: clear and coherent goals for each class; teachers
who work 15 to 16 hours a day; careful lesson planning; and a decade’s worth of
techniques, tricks, games and chants designed to help vast amounts of information penetrate
poorly educated brains very quickly.” (p 9)
 Tough cites a key critic of KIPP, “Richard Rothstein, a former education columnist for The
New York Times who is now a lecturer at Teachers College.” (Note the way journalist Tough
introduces Rothstein using a kind of rhetorical précis.) Rothstein is skeptical KIPP schools
provide a model that can be widely adopted, arguing
1) The “model cannot be replicated on a wide scale” [remember, it requires teachers work 15
to 16 hour days – other material I’ve read on this and Teach for America suggests that the
burnout rate is high – many teachers only last 2 or 3 years.]
2) The “elevated incoming scores at the Bronx school make it mostly irrelevant to the
national debate over the achievement gap….Although Rothstein acknowledges that KIPP’s
students are chosen by lottery, he contends in his book “Class and Schools” that they are “not
typical lower-class students.” The very fact that their parents would bother to enroll them in
the lottery sets them apart from other inner-city children, he says, adding that there is “no
evidence” that KIPP’s strategy “would be as successful for students whose parents are not
motivated to choose such a school.”
Tough suggests a host of other reasons why poor and minority students fare badly in school.
For example, he states that 1) the best teachers are given no incentives to teach at the most
needy schools, and a large % of the worst teachers teach at the poorest schools, 2) government
spending on schools often makes this situation worse.
1) “Nationwide, the best and most experienced teachers are allowed to choose where they teach.
And since most state contracts offer teachers no bonus or incentive for teaching in a school
with a high population of needy children, the best teachers tend to go where they are needed
the least. A study that the Education Trust issued in June used data from Illinois to
demonstrate the point. Illinois measures the quality of its teachers and divides their scores
into four quartiles, and those numbers show glaring racial inequities. In majority-white
schools, bad teachers are rare: just 11 percent of the teachers are in the lowest quartile.
But in schools with practically no white students, 88 percent of the teachers are in the
worst quartile. The same disturbing pattern holds true in terms of poverty. At schools where
more than 90 percent of the students are poor — where excellent teachers are needed
the most — just 1 percent of teachers are in the highest quartile.
2) “Government spending on education does not tend to compensate for these inequities; in fact,
it often makes them worse. Goodwin Liu, a law professor at the University of California at
Berkeley, has compiled persuasive evidence for what he calls the country’s “education
apartheid.” In states with more poor children, spending per pupil is lower. In Mississippi, for
instance, it is $5,391 a year; in Connecticut, it is $9,588. Most education financing comes
from state and local governments, but the federal supplement for poor children, Title 1, is
“regressive,” Liu points out, because it is tied to the amount each state spends. So the federal
government gives Arkansas $964 to help educate each poor child in the state, and it gives
Massachusetts $2,048 for each poor child there.”
Prospectus for Paper 2 (1 -2 pages)
It’s a good idea to write a prospectus before you construct a paper from several sources as
it gives you a chance to think through your paper and play with ideas. If you go over one
page, that’s fine. If anything, it will help you better articulate your ideas for your paper.
Your prospectus should include the following parts:
 Introduction: this is where you will give some background on the central text and
discuss why it is of interest to you and others. Consider the following questions:
o What is the claim your author discusses in this central text?
o What interests you about this claim?
o What aspect of this claim will you explore?
 Research: this where you connect the two secondary sources you will be using to
write this paper. Consider the following questions:
o How do these secondary sources connect to your central text?
o What issue(s) in these secondary sources will your paper explore?
o HOW do these outside sources affect your understanding of the central
text? Think in terms of verbs, what the outside text does to your reading of
the central text, i.e. challenge, illustrate, qualify, extend or complicate.
WHY do they do that? In other words, in what ways do they make you revisit the central text?
 Conclusion: this is where you round up your prospectus. This section should
highlight your main point – i.e., your purpose for writing this paper.
o At this moment, what do you think the main point of your paper will be?
This may be a good opportunity to write your “purpose statement.”
MLA Works Cited Page, annotated. Under each source entry, write a few sentences why
you selected the source.
Framework for Body paragraphs
Project #2: Using outside sources to illustrate, extend, clarify, or complicate and
argument
Using the Prospectus you wrote for this project, start filling in the blanks below to help
organize your ideas. Please note that you will need to provide more than one example
from each source. This is just an exercise to help you organize your ideas as you get
started.
Introduce the text
Introduce the author
Describe main argument(s) addressed in this text
Quote author’s claim from primary text that you will investigate
Introduce outside sources and STATE whether they (illustrate, extend, clarify, and/or complicate) the text
[This statement is your claim that you will be trying to prove throughout your paper]
Identify outside source #1 and EXPLAIN how outside research relates to the author’s claim (HOW does it
illustrate, extend, clarify, complicate the argument?)
Quote the source that was just introduced in order to provide evidence for your claim – SHOW how this source
illustrates, extends, clarifies, or complicates the text
Analyze the quote, explaining why it is meaningful - EXPLAIN WHY this source illustrates, extends, clarifies,
or complicates the text
Identify outside source #2 and EXPLAIN HOW outside research relates to the author’s claim (HOW does it
illustrate, extend, clarify, complicate the argument?)
Quote the source that was just introduced in order to provide evidence for your claim – SHOW how this source
illustrates, extends, clarifies, or complicates the text
Analyze the quote, explaining why it is meaningful - EXPLAIN WHY this source illustrates, extends, clarifies,
or complicates the text
Explain HOW the evidence from both sources illustrates, extends, clarifies, and/or complicates the claim and WHY
this evidence is SIGNIFICANT (why should we care)
Framework for Body paragraphs + Sample Body paragraphs
Organizing your writing:
Project #2: Using outside sources to illustrate, extend, clarify, or complicate and argument
I have filled in the blanks below as an example, using the paragraph I drafted regarding how documents written by
Roman Catholic leaders complicate Kidder’s argument. Please note that you will need to provide more than one
example from each source. This is just a starting point.
Introduce the text
In his bestselling novel Mountains Beyond Mountains
Introduce the author
Journalist Tracy Kidder
Describe main topic(s) addressed
in this text
discusses liberation theology as a “branch of Catholicism” (62).
Quote author’s claim from
primary text that you will
investigate
He states that “Latin America’s Catholic bishops had endorsed some of its
tenets” in the “late 1960s,” and describes its “central imperative” which is “to
provide a preferential option for the poor” (62, 81).
Introduce outside sources and
STATE whether they (illustrate,
extend, clarify, and/or
complicate) the text
However, several documents written by Roman Catholic leaders complicate
the argument presented by Kidder.
[This statement is your claim
that you will be trying to
prove throughout your paper]
Identify outside source #1 and
EXPLAIN how outside research
relates to the author’s claim (HOW
does it illustrate, extend, clarify,
complicate the argument?)
Though his book was published in 2004, Kidder failed to make note of the
fact that Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI)
presented a document specifically discussing the Roman Catholic stance on
liberation theology during the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith in August, 1984, entitled “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology
of Liberation.’”
Quote the source that was just
introduced in order to provide
evidence for your claim – SHOW
how this source illustrates,
extends, clarifies, or complicates
the text (Kidder)
In this text, Prefect Ratzinger points out that there are “essential aspects [of
Christianity] which the ’theologies of liberation’ especially tend to
misunderstand or eliminate.”
Analyze the quote, explaining
why it is meaningful - EXPLAIN
WHY this source illustrates,
extends, clarifies, or complicates
the text (Kidder)
Identify outside source #2 and
EXPLAIN HOW outside research
relates to the author’s claim (HOW
does it illustrate, extend, clarify,
complicate the argument?)
Kidder fails to mention the Marxist associations of some branches of
liberation theology, the violent political tenets of which contradict the
teachings of Catholicism.
Quote the source that was just
introduced in order to provide
evidence for your claim – SHOW
how this source illustrates,
extends, clarifies, or complicates
the text (Kidder)
The Prefect also discusses ways in which some of the “theologies of liberation”
can misrepresent the “Christian meaning” of the poor, “by confusing “the 'poor'
of the Scripture and the 'proletariat' of Marx. In this way they pervert the
Christian meaning of the poor, and they transform the fight for the rights of the
poor into a class fight within the ideological perspective of the class struggle.”
In an interview held during a flight to Brazil for The Fifth General Conference
of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean in May, 2007, Pope
Benedict XVI (formerly Prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) responded to
questions about current exponents of liberation theology in Brazil, and also
explained the intent behind his 1984 text regarding liberation theology.
. . . there is room for a difficult but legitimate debate on how to achieve
[necessary reforms, in the fight for fairer living conditions] and on how
best to make the Church's social doctrine effective. In this regard, certain
liberation theologians are also attempting to advance, keeping to this path;
others are taking other positions.
In any case, the intervention of the Magisterium was not to destroy the
commitment to justice but rather to guide it on the right paths, and also
with respect for the proper difference between political responsibility and
ecclesiastical responsibility.
Analyze the quote, explaining
why it is meaningful - EXPLAIN
WHY this source illustrates,
extends, clarifies, or complicates
the text (Kidder)
Explain HOW the evidence from
both sources illustrates, extends,
clarifies, and/or complicates the
claim and WHY this evidence is
SIGNIFICANT (why should we
care)
This interview, which takes place more than 20 years after “Instruction on
Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’” was published, extends the
argument set forth in this document. Pope Benedict XVI points out that some
practitioners of liberation theology follow the “path” advocated by the
Catholic Church, while others do not, and that the Church wishes to guide
Christians who advocate for the poor to do so without violence and without
pushing a specific political agenda.
Though Kidder alluded to the fact that only “some” of the tenets of liberation
theology have been endorsed by the Catholic Church, his failure to mention
the reasons why other tenets of liberation theology were not endorsed by the
Church reveal a shortcoming in his presentation of liberation theology as a
“branch of Catholicism.”
Sample body paragraphs CHARTED (Uses Chua)
SAMPLE # 1: connecting Chua/Norberg-Hodge + showing how this COMPLICATES Chua
In Amy Chua’s article “A World on Fire,” the author argues that the volatile brew of democracy,
free markets and ethnic hatred conspire to create global instability and violence. She claims that
deep-seated ethnic tension would exist even in the absence of free markets and democracy, but
when the latter two elements are added to the mix, ethnic tension can quickly turn into violence.
Chua points out the fallacy of the idea that ethnic identity is strictly a political or social
phenomenon when she states, “Try telling black and white Zimbabweans that they are only
imagining their ethnic differences – that ethnicity is just a social construct – and they will at least
agree on one thing: you’re not being helpful.” (113). In an article entitled “Globalization and
Terror” published in the journal Ecologist in 2002, Helena Norberg-Hodge, founder and director
of the International Society for Ecology and Culture, and author of many books on globalization
and sustainable development, recounts her experiences among the Ladakh people of the Western
Himalayas. In doing so she complicates Chua’s argument that globalization is primarily a
catalyst in an already simmering brew of ethnic tensions. Norberg-Hodge asserts that
“globalization [does] not simply exacerbate existing tensions but in many cases actually create[s]
them” (5). To support this argument, she uses the example of Ladakh, where the Buddhist
majority and Muslim minority had gotten along with no conflict for 600 years before entering the
global economy made them first into competitors, and then into enemies. She states, “within a
decade of the imposition of Western-style ‘development,’ Buddhists and Muslims were engaged
in pitched battles – including the bombing of each other’s homes” (3). Although both of these
authors agree that globalization contributes to ethnic tensions, they differ on exactly what role
globalization plays and to what extent it can be considered the cause of ethnic violence.
SAMPLE # 2: connecting Chua & Bowden + showing how this CHALLENGES Chua
While Chua sees conflicts between ethnicities in developing countries as driven in large part by
globalization and democratization, others believe that poor government is the main culprit in
interethnic conflict. In “The Myth of Global Ethnic Conflict,” John R. Bowden, professor of
anthropology at Washington University St. Louis, notes that many countries composed of diverse
ethnic groups such as Malaysia, have avoided conflict because their governments have created
“multiethnic coalitions” which encourage different groups to “seek the large electoral middle
ground.” The countries he uses as examples are all democracies. Thus Bowden challenges
Chua’s argument as he believes that democracy, properly run, can prevent ethnic violence. In
particular, he argues that federalist systems that “disperse” dominance and encourage coalitions
are more likely to be successful. This contrasts with Chua, who believes that in countries where
there is a “market dominant minority,” popular majorities always tend toward ethnocentrism, and
one of three types of “backlash” are very likely. Bowden, on the other hand, believes that ethnic
conflict exists only when certain ethnicities are left out of the power structure, or when
destructive “political choices” are made. He acknowledges that cultural diversity does present
challenges to peace, and that certain other factors make conflict more likely. For example, he
notes that certain kinds of colonial rule, in which one group was pitted against another, may make
reconciliation difficult. Furthermore, Bowden agrees with Chua that demagogues and elites can
create “fear from the top” that pushes people toward horrific acts of violence (p. 8. Bowden cites
the crises in Rwanda and the Balkans of this). Bowden also agrees with Chua that economic
differences are often at the bottom of ethnic conflict (p. 5) However, Bowden insists that
democracy and globalization do not lead inevitably to the kind of problems Chua outlines, and
that we must focus on the many underlying factors he believes are the real drivers of violence.
Most importantly, we must try to encourage the kind of political arrangements that will reduce
violence, which means a renewed commitment to democracy rather than a retreat from it.
More Sample Body Paragraphs – Healthcare
Example 1: In “The Moral Hazard Myth,” Malcolm Gladwell argues that the U. S. Healthcare
system is deeply flawed due to the erroneous application of the idea of moral hazard. He argues
that this has a profound impact on shaping our current health care system and that the
predominant actuarial insurance model is a direct result of the application of this idea to health
insurance. Gladwell demonstrates how this actuarial system affects Americans, focusing
primarily on those in the lower income brackets and below the poverty line who are impacted
most significantly. Robert Pear’s article “Without Health Benefits, A Good Life Turns Fragile,”
extends Gladwell’s argument concerning the impact of the current insurance system to those in
the middle class. His profile of real estate agent Vicki Readling, who was unable to insure herself
after being diagnosed with cancer because of the exorbitant cost ($27,000 per year), illustrates
Gladwell’s point that the sick are clustered together at the high cost end of the insurance spectrum
while also extending the argument about the negative effects of the actuarial system to a class of
American’s that Gladwell’s article did not directly address (Readling’s income is $60,000).
Example 2: In his article “Sick and Twisted,” Atul Gawande acknowledges the role that Michael
Moore’s film “Sicko” plays in exposing the average American to the atrocities of the United
States health-care system; however, he is critical of the film in that it fails to provide solutions to
the problems it identifies. Gawande complicates Moore’s argument about the source of the
problems in the U.S. system by arguing that it lies within Americans themselves and their
reluctance to make the kinds of sacrifices that will be required in order to truly recreate that
system rather than in the “insurance companies, pharmaceutical-industry lobbyists, [and]
politicians” that Moore claims are the source.
More Sample Body Paragraphs
SAMPLE 1: Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the Libertarian Cato Institute,
complicates Moore’s argument for the ‘right’ to universal health care, by posing logistical questions that
he claims Moore has failed to consider. In a short section entitled, “A Right to Health Care? Moore
assumptions,” adapted from a book that he co-authored, Healthy Competition: What’s Holding Back
Health Care and How to Free It, Cannon queries, “Medical care can be as essential to survival as food.
But does it follow that people have a right to medical care? Would creating a legally enforceable ‘right’ to
health care solve America’s health-care difficulties, as Moore supposes? Or would it add to them?”
Cannon acknowledges that medical care is essential to human life, as does Moore, but suggests that
providing this care is not as simple as merely declaring it to be a human right. There are many important,
logistical elements that are missing from Moore’s supposed solution, including where the money to
subsidize health care will come from, who will be given the ‘power’ to conceptualize this program, and
how one might define the scope of a ‘right’ to unlimited, free medical care. Cannon asserts, “with the
wide variety of tests and treatments, someone must decide where the right to health care ends, less the
nation be bankrupt…most nations hand that power to unelected bureaucrats, who ration medical careoften by making even seriously ill patients wait for care.” In Cannon’s view, the conception of universal
health care is perhaps not quite as flawless as Moore portrays in the ‘traveling’ vignettes in Sicko. He
exposes the problems of cost efficiency and care rationing, stating that while policy makers are deciding
how to provide equal care for every citizen, those who are in dire need of receiving it, might die waiting
for an answer. Essentially, Cannon complicates Moore’s ‘assumption’ of a right to health care, by
considering the difficulties associated with assigning this privilege, and demonstrating how Moore has
failed to acknowledge the complexity of implementing universal medical care.
SAMPLE 2 Michael Moore vehemently claims that America should adopt a universal health care
system with free medical insurance for all. Jacob S. Hacker, author of "Healing Our Sicko Health
Care System" complicates Moore's claim by suggesting that his argument's limitation lies in the fact
that Moore fails to provide a realistic solution. Hacker argues that Moore's position should be revised
to include a more realistic plan for free health care and faults Moore's choice to ignore the Medicare
system. Hacker then extends Moore's argument by providing his own solution to the problems Moore
discusses in his film. Hacker believes Medicare has "controlled expenses better than the private
sector, spends little n administration, and allows patients to seek care from nearly every doctor and
hospital" (735). Hacker agrees that change is necessary, but furthers Moore's original argument by
providing what he believes to be a suitable and real solution to the health care crisis.
SAMPLE 3: Liz Mair complicates Michael Moore’s claim that adoption of a universal health care
system is an almost flawless solution to the crisis by challenging that “its depiction of systems of
socialized medicine is far off base.” Mair, a former member of the NHS (British National Health
Service) believes that Moore fails to address all of the facts regarding socialized health care capturing
only the good, while editing out the bad. One particular area of neglect is the incredible amount of wait
time often required for NHS patients to see a doctor. Mair illustrates, “in September 2006, more than
6,000 patients in eastern England had to wait more than 20 weeks to begin treatment already prescribed
by their doctors”. Moore’s camera only focuses on the patients’ laughter and confusion whenever he
asks how much they had to pay for their hospital visit but fails to consider that it takes much longer to
receive treatment under this socialized system. Another problem with NHS that Sicko neglects to
mention are the cases where people have been denied life-saving medical treatment because the
government controls and limits access to it. Mair points out that Moore fails to mention “stories such as
those widely publicized in 2006 and 2007 about cancer patients who were denied access to life-saving
cancer drugs by the NHS, which had refused to make them available because they were not “costeffective” (i.e., cheap).” Mair uses these factual examples and more to show the inefficiencies of NHS
that Moore purposefully leaves out of his film. While Moore depicts American insurance companies as
the money hungry monster whose goal is financial gain more than quality of care, Mair’s examples seem
to suggest that he has not dealt with the full complexity of the issue as it is obvious that NHS is capable
of the same. Although Moore’s interviews may be accurate they fail to look at some of NHS’
inefficiencies and only highlight its strengths.
DECODER RING/MAP FOR (MUCH) ACADEMIC WRITING/RESEARCH
1. Identify a key problem or question, and establish its exigency to a discourse community
2. Do a critical synthesis/lit review of arguments relevant to your question/problem
3. Establish “niche” in landscape of previous arguments. Two main ways of doing this:
A) challenge, complicate, qualify, extend, apply, illustrate, replicate, verify
B) establish niche - gap, shortcoming, absence, limitation in existing research
4. Present your contribution, and show how it addresses one of above criteria – i.e. “fills” the
gap, addresses the limitation, extends the theory, solves the problem, etc.
NOTE: assignment 2 asks you to do a simplified version of some of these fundamental moves..
CARS (create a research space) model, adapted from John Swales’ work
Move 1: establishing a territory/entering the conversation
a) claim centrality and/or significance
b) introduce the specific problem or issue
c) establish “insider status”
Move 2: define the scope of the problem or issue by summarizing previous research
Move 3: create a research space by:
a)
indicating a gap in previous research
b)
indicating a shortcoming, limitation or weakness in previous research
c)
indicating a possible extension
Move 4: introduce present research by:
A) stating the aim of the research
B) describing the research
C) justifying the research
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS “A Framework for Culture Assessment.” Tomasz Lenartowicz;
Kendall Roth. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 30, No. 4., pp. 781-798.
1.Understanding the nature and influences of culture is central to international business. 2.Such
inquiry presupposes knowing that the cultural grouping(s) of a study is a valid unit of analysis,
which is critical in that the estimation of culture effects can vary based on the unit definition.
3.Unfortunately, perhaps out of convenience, international studies often simply use a countrybased definition of culture. 4.In a desire to facilitate further development in understanding culture
effects, in this paper, we propose a framework by which valid cultural groupings may be
assessed.
LITERARY STUDIES “Professing Literature is a history of academic literary studies in the
United States, roughly from the Yale Report of 1828, which assured the primacy of the classical
over the vernacular languages in American colleges for another half century, to the waning of the
New Criticism in the 1960s and subsequent controversies over literary theory…These early
practices assumed a theory of the social function of literature that affected the shape of literature
departments…Those who see that the humanities have become disablingly incoherent seem to me
right, but many of them fail to see that coherence can no longer be grounded in some
restored consensus, whether it be traditional “basics,” revolutionary ideological critique, or
something else. In the final analysis, what academic literary studies have had to work with is not
a coherent tradition, but a series of conflicts that remain unresolved, unacknowledged, and
assumed to be outside the proper sphere of literary education. To bring these conflicts into that
sphere will mean thinking of literary education as part of a larger cultural history that includes the
other humanities as well as the sciences…” [Gerald Graff, Professing Literature]
Basic Peer Review
Skim your own paper. Take a few minutes to
1. Note down any questions you still have
2. Note down any problem areas/issues you are finding tricky, OR the key areas you
think need improvement
Peer Review
1. Read your peer’s paper, and ask her/him about the key areas to be improved/
problem areas. Brainstorm how to address these problems.
2. Focus on the body paragraphs that analyze the connection between Pinker and
outside sources. Take a look at the outside source text, and the section of it your
peer used in the analysis. Do you have any questions? Do you have any
suggestions? Can you think of any ways of making the analysis stronger?
3. Ask your peer to show you the sentences that discuss HOW the outside source
illustrates, extends, complicates etc. Pinker. Can you think of any ways of
making the analysis stronger?
Full Peer Review
Your Name____________________________________________
Name of person you are reviewing__________________________
Date: _________________________________________________
PART 1: CHARTING YOUR PEER’S TEXT
Chart your peer’s text – that is, in each paragraph or sentence, write in the margin the “move” that
you think your peer is making. When you are done, compare notes with your peer. List and
discuss any areas of disagreement.
PART 2: PEER REVIEW
1. Does the opening paragraph introduce the topic, Moore, Moore’s background, his main argument
and the stated/apparent purpose of the movie (the project – what he sets out to accomplish, plus the
kind of evidence he draws on)? Comments/suggested improvements?
2. Does the paper describe the students’ project (example: “My project will review and
evaluate two scholarly sources that help illustrate, clarify, and extend X’s argument. I will then
conclude with….”) List comments/suggested improvements
3. Does the paper correctly capture one or more of Moore’s claims, and does it present a
“nuanced’ account of his position – i.e. capture the complexities of his argument?
Comments/suggested improvements
4. When describing Moore’s claims does the paper use quote(s) that are correctly a) introduced,
b) integrated, c) explained, d) correctly cited.? List comments/suggested improvements
5. When introducing the first author to be connected to Moore’s work does the paper present a
brief rhetorical précis, and outline the author’s project? List comments/suggested
improvements
6. Does the paper successfully discuss how this author’s work relates to Moore’s, and does the
paper use quote(s) that are correctly a) introduced, b) integrated, c) explained, d) correctly cited.?
List comments/suggested improvements
7. Does the paper just compare evidence, or repeat what the author says about Moore, or does it
make genuine connections between the texts? How?
List comments/suggested improvements
8. Does the paper demonstrate explicitly, and in detail, how Moore’s text is complicated,
extended, clarified, or illustrated? How does the paper do this?
List comments/suggested improvements
9. With the second author, does the paper carry out the steps listed in #5 - # 8 above?
List comments/suggested improvements
10. Does the paper conclude with a section that discusses the issue of significance? List
comments/suggested improvements
ORGANIZATION
Your Rating: How would you rate the organization of this paper?

7. Excellent
Sophisticated arrangement of content with evident and/or subtle transitions.
Effective arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with evidence of

6. Very good
transitions.
Functional arrangement of content that sustains a logical order with some

5. Good
evidence of transitions.

4. Average
Consistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at transitions.
Confused or inconsistent arrangement of content with or without attempts at

3. Poor
transitions.

2. Very poor
Minimal control of content arrangement without attempts at transitions.

1. Disastrous
No apparent content arrangement and no attempt at transitions.
GENERAL COMMENTS: please note any strengths and/or suggested improvements. Include
discussion of mechanics (comma splices, fragments, etc.)
Sample Papers
Sample Pinker Draft #1
Morals: More than Right and Wrong
“Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind, and astound the other.” Through this
quote, Mark Twain reveals his beliefs on the ethics of society, where given any situation, a person
should choose to do the right thing. But what if the solution to an issue wasn’t so linear? What if the
foundations of a problem aren’t based on good or bad, but moral or immoral? Had a various
population of people be asked to make the same decision, would they not generally lean towards
what was “right”? Or would their answers, like their moral backgrounds, vary? These are just a few
of the many issues commonly discussed in regards to morality. Although most philosophers simply
state “do what is right,” studies are being conducted to better understand the morals of people and
their significance in society. Steven Pinker addresses his main concerns about moral sense through
“The Moral Instinct,” an article published in the New York Times Magazine. He introduces the
basics and common misconceptions of morals, as well as illustrates unfamiliar sides of morality that
affect our overall thought process. Pinker argues that “The science of moral sense can strengthen
our understanding of our moral foundations, which can advance an understanding of our moral
motivations, allow us to act accordingly, reach more adequate compromise, and more effectively
resolve conflicts.” He emphasizes the importance of moral sense, as he believes it could solve many
problems. In my essay, I will address how outside texts influence Pinker’s claims, as they provide
additional information and examples that illustrate the necessity of understanding our moral sense.
When problems comes up, people are quick to take a stance on the position. This is because they
don’t reason their way through a problem; they take a stance, usually influenced by emotion and
culture, and then rationalize why they think they’re “right.” Pinker explains that “People don’t
generally engage in moral reasoning, but moral rationalization” (Pinker 17). His claim is
fundamentally built on the idea of moral rationalization, which is governed by the intuitions of our
emotional impulse. This is opposed to our moral reasoning, which would allow us to assess exactly
what is wrong and what is right. We immediately come to a “logical” conclusion based on emotion,
rather than reaching a conclusion after thorough reasoning and thought. He further illustrates his
claim through the scenario of the trolley and the value of five men over one. People are mostly
inclined to sacrifice one to save five; but if they had to personally shove a fat man in front of the
trolley to save them, most people said they wouldn’t, but with no logical explanation. Pinker
concluded that this is due in part to our emotional-impulses’ influence over our moral
rationalization, and in this way, moral reasoning is generally ignored.
David Pizarro and Paul Bloom bring up different ideas about morals and intuition. In “The
Intelligence of the Moral Intuitions,” a commentary published in the Psychological Review, they
address questions of right and wrong, and how reasoning must play a part in achieving our moral
judgment. They claim that “our immediate moral intuitions are informed by conscious deliberation,
and this deliberation plays a central role in our moral judgments” (Pizarro and Bloom 195). They
convey the idea that moral reasoning is essential to coming to such conclusions about whether
something is right or wrong, and is thus correlated to moral rationalization. Our innate moral sense
is defined by our emotions, culture, and life experiences. Although we’ve developed our moral
intuition through impulse, we are able to control our automatic reactions using moral reasoning.
Pizarro and Bloom use the example of a dieter, purposefully skipping the ice cream aisle to resist
temptation; although an automatic reaction would be to indulge in ice cream, we use deliberation to
resist and control our impulses. Through reason and logic, we are able to modify our intuitions, and
alter our ability to rationalize. This is relevant to moral issues in as we try to distinguish right from
wrong; people are most likely to have an automatic, intuitive response; but we could modify out
reactions by deliberative reasoning. Pizarro and Blooms’s claim is relevant to Pinker’s in that they
talk about their position on reasoning’s influence over our moral intuition and rationalization.
Pizarro and Bloom fundamentally complicates Pinker’s claim, for Pinker conveys that
moral reasoning and moral rationalization are completely separate, while Pizarro implies that one
holds influence over the other. Pinker emphasizes the idea that people are more likely to partake in
moral rationalization than moral reasoning and establishes that reasoning and rationalization as two
separate entities. Pizzaro and Bloom bring up the idea that deliberative reasoning can indirectly
affect moral judgment. This is set opposed to Pinker’s claim, in the sense that people in fact do
engage in moral reasoning, as it’s essential to your rationalization and thought. The two ideas
conflict with each other, as one author states the two are separate, while the other explains how one
affects the other.
Other than reasoning and rationalization, Pinker discusses the influence that the five moral spheres
and culture have over our moral sense. He states that “The five moral spheres are universal, a
legacy to evolution. But how they are ranked in importance, and which is brought in to moralize
which area of social life… depends on culture” (Pinker 39). Pinker explicitly mentions evolution in
his claim to acknowledge the biological factors of morality. It’s relative to his idea that we’re all
born with a universal moral grammar, as it addresses the roots of our morality. He begins
explaining how the five moral spheres – harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity – are
prevalent in other cultures, and that each culture is unique and different from the others. It’s
through this claim that Pinker conveys the idea that although morality may be something we are
innately born with, our morals are more heavily influenced by culture. We’re born with impulses
that have allowed us to evolve, such avoiding harm, but our values are constructed by our culture.
Pinker illustrates this idea by contrasting America with other civilizations. Americans have
developed a society that values fairness, as we frown upon powerful figures simply authoritative
position to family and relatives; that practice is normal in other parts of the world, because, as
Pinker states, “What heartless creep would favor a perfect stranger over his own brother?” (Pinker
39). This shows that although we are all born with a universal moral grammar, the influence of
culture is much more prevalent, as it truly defines each societies set of values.
But Pinker doesn’t stand alone within the discussion of morality and its roots. Paul Bloom
offers his insight on morals through his article, “The Moral Life of Babies” in the New York Times,
and asserts that “Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned,
the discovered, and the invented” (Bloom 12). He explains that our sense of morality is a
combination of the morals we’re endowed with at birth and the influences of our cultural setting.
Although we begin primitive and undeveloped, we are born with an innate sense of right and
wrong. Our initial sense of right and wrong are related to evolution, in the sense that everything
babies do is to promote their survival. The behavior of babies can’t be seen as moral conduct,
because morality is based on the choice to do good or evil. Babies can’t possibly act on such
impulses, as their actions are entirely dictated by their need to survive. Although adult moral
feelings are primarily instinctive, they are considered to be mature because adults are able to
consciously reason and think about morality. The moral feelings of adults and babies are both
emotionally impulsive, but it’s because babies aren’t able to rationalize whether an action is good
or evil that makes their sense of morality underdeveloped. It is after we develop this understanding
of individuality and culture that we develop a more mature sense of morality, as it shapes us into
the people we are today. Like Pinker, Bloom addresses both the biological and cultural aspects of
the development of morals.
But the discussion of this topic doesn’t stop there. Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham
provide their insight on the topic of morality through their essay “When Morality Opposes Justice:
Conservatives have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize.” While they primarily argue
about morality and how an understanding of moral values could possibly unite differing political
parties in regards to the view on morals, Haidt and Graham place a significant emphasis on the
basis of morality. They claim that “Cultures vary in degree, to which they construct, value, and
teach virtues based on the five intuitive foundations” (Haidt and Graham 6). Their beliefs of the
five foundations of intuition - Harm, Reciprocity, Ingroup, Hierarchy, and Purity - are similar, and
in some cases identical, to that of Pinker’s. They begin to go into an in-depth analysis of each
segment, including historical information and how each affects people and their morals. This is
different from how Pinker discussed the five spheres of morality, for he simply glazed over
scenario’s where each was prevalent, as opposed to explaining each was significant.
All authors convey their thoughts about both aspects and their influence over morality. Bloom’s
article and Haidt and Graham’s essay extend Pinker’s claim, as they take generally the same stance
on the idea of culture’s influence on the morals of people. They accept the idea that people do begin
life on earth with moral sense; it is not developed, but exists nonetheless. At an early age, we are
able to distinguish right from wrong in the most basic of cases, and our perception of morality only
gets stronger from there. Eventually, we become the product of our own life experiences and
cultural influences, each equipped with our unique sense of morality. Pinker uses examples of
different cultures and their specific practices to explain his claim, such as the “Japanese fear of
nonconformity” and the “diet restrictions of Hindus and Orthodox Jews” (Pinker 39). This is set
opposed to Bloom, who leaves his argument broad as he refers to society in general. Differing
levels of specificity was also significant between the works of Pinker and Haidt and Graham.
Pinker briefly goes over the significance of each sphere by providing an example, while Haidt and
Graham extends their discussion into the historical components of each moral sphere, as well as
how each sphere is prevalent in a specific culture. For example, in regards to the moral sphere of
“harm,” Pinker illustrates the difference between “sticking a pin into your palm [versus] sticking a
pin into the palm of a child you don’t know” (Pinker 34). Haidt and Graham explains the same
moral sphere by discussing how evolution has caused modern day individuals to feel compassion or
aggression towards other people, and that cultures vary in their value for this particular sphere.
Although the evidence to support their similar claims are different, they each further extend each
other’s claim on culture and morality.
Morality and the study of moral sense is much more broad than one would think. At a
glance, one wouldn’t initially begin to question the cultural aspect of morality, nor consider the
differences between rationality or reasoning. Pinker easily conveys that the science of moral sense
is significant and can ultimately better society, and the works of Pizarro, Bloom, Haidt, and Graham
stimulate further discussion. Though Pizarro and Bloom complicate Pinker’s idea of the
relationship between moral rationalization and moral reasoning, they clarify that conscious
deliberation plays a part in our moral judgement, and that our moral sense isn’t entirely intuitive.
Through “The Moral Life of Babies,” Bloom extends Pinker’s argument by stating that morality is
a combination of biological and cultural factors; we are born with an innate sense of morals that are
developed by our life experiences and culture. Haidt and Graham take the discussion on cultural
influence even farther by illustrating several cultural values and their historical significance.
Although these authors may have different opinions, or present their claims differently, they all
advance our understanding of the moral sense. If anything, it’s the tension and dissatisfaction that
opposing arguments bring that should motivate us more to better understand what makes us tick,
and what we can do to make the world better. It’s the very study of morality that causes the
opposition in ideas and beliefs in the first place. Although I’m still not a master on the topic of
morality, I’ve come to understand its significance to people, as well as its societal implications.
Though we can’t entirely control how culture influences us, we allow it guide us. People around the
world may differ in culture, but we are fundamentally the same, as our morals adapt and evolve to
better ourselves. Though society focuses on individual morals that assign the idea of right and
wrong, we are unified by the automatic process of morals bettering society as a whole.
Works Cited
Bloom, Paul. "The Moral Life of Babies." The New York Times Magazine 10 May 2010: 1-7. Print.
Haidt, Jonathan, and Jesse Graham. "When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives have Moral
Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize." Social Justice Research. Charlottesville, VA. 2007.
Web. 23 Oct. 2012.
Pinker, Steven. “The Moral Instinct” RWS 100 Course Reader. Ed Chris Werry. San Diego:
Montezuma Publishing, 2012. 61-72. Print.
Pizarro, David A., and Paul Bloom. "The Intelligence of the Moral Intuitions: Comment on Haidt
(2001)." Psychological Review 110.1 (2003): 193-96. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.
Sample Pinker Draft #2
Steven Pinker, experimental psychologist, cognitive scientist, and Harvard Professor discusses
morality in his New York Times article, “The Moral Instinct,” emphasizing the idea of morality as a
science. His main argument insists that with further analysis of the science of the moral sense, we
will be able to better understand our incentives in making moral judgments. Pinker applies a series
of examples, hypothetical situations, surveys, and experiments in order to prove that morality, just
like science, can be investigated, and that the knowledge gained from moral science can help us in
the future. One major claim in his article suggests that we possess an innate moral instinct, which
overpowers our reason when we make a moral judgment. David Pizarro and Paul Bloom challenge
this idea in “The Intelligence of the Moral Intuition,” which argues that reasoning serves a major
role in morality. Pinker’s second claim asserts that the morality we’re born with is developed
overtime through rationalization and factors in society, an argument which Paul Bloom expands
upon in his article “The Moral Life of Babies.” This paper will compare and contrast Pinker’s first
claim with the challenging view of Pizarro and Bloom, and demonstrate how Pinker’s second claim
is expanded by Blooms research with babies.
In his article, Pinker addresses the possibility that people are born with certain moral
predispositions that affect their moral intuitions and tendencies. In accordance with Jonathan Haidt,
Pinker argues that people first experience an unconscious emotion that they then attempt to explain
through rationalization. He supports this claim with examples of moral dilemmas which people
instantly reject without substantial reasons for doing so. The moral dilemmas that Pinker cites
include a brother and sister have consensual sex, a woman cutting up an American flag, and a
family dog being accidently hit by a car and purposefully eaten. Upon being told of these situations,
most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong. After failure to craft a plausible
justification when prompted to do so, people simply declare, “I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just
know it’s wrong” (64). Pinker asserts that people are born with an innate revulsion to certain acts
that are widely considered to be immoral, such as incest or eating family pets. These examples
support his main argument in that they illustrate how moral judgments are mere tricks of the brain,
and that the science of moral sense helps us to understand the reasoning behind our moral decisions.
According to Pinker, when a person faces a moral dilemma, their brain subconsciously flips a
switch so they can distinguish between right and wrong, and they have to work backwards in order
to provide justification for their moral conclusion.
David A. Pizarro and Paul Bloom provide a different explanation of our moral intuitions. They
assert that deliberative reasoning is a factor in the formation of moral judgments, and that prior
reasoning can influence what may appear to be snap judgments. Pizarro and Bloom emphasize the
“importance of cognitive appraisals in the arousal of quick involuntary responses” (194). In other
words, though many people might not even realize it, our initial reactions to situations are based on
previous evaluation of similar situations. The authors then suggest that our intuitive responses to
moral dilemmas can be altered if we change our thoughts or appraisals for that dilemma. To support
this idea, Pizarro and Bloom provide an example through a trial conducted by Dandoy and
Goldstein in which they showed participants footage of a factory accident. Participants who were
told to view the films with an apathetic attitude showed “less physiological distress” than those who
were only told of the films content (194). This experiment demonstrates how our reactions to
situations can vary depending on previous knowledge. Pizarro and Bloom also point out that people
can influence their own moral decisions by manipulating their environment. As follows, if a
person’s moral judgments can be altered by prior reasoning, and common-sense decisions, then
deliberative rationalization plays a bigger role in moral decision making than Pinker believes.
Pinker insists that morality is an instinct, but Pizarro and Bloom qualify this argument. Pizarro and
Bloom agree that people do possess automatic reactions to certain extreme moral circumstances,
such as killing babies or having sex with animals; however, they contend that this idea doesn’t
apply to simple cases. What Pinker calls the moral sense, Pizarro and Bloom attribute to
deliberative reasoning.
Pinker speculates the idea of moral realism: the thought that we are born with certain primitive
morals which develop through time based on our ability to reason. He contemplates the possibility
that moral truths exist outside of our minds, and are there for us to discover, in the same way we
must discover mathematical truths. Pinker uses the example of mathematics by pointing out that we
are born with the apprehension of numbers as concepts, and eventually develop skills to add them
together to make other numbers. Similarly, he claims “we are born with a rudimentary moral sense,
and as soon as we build on it with moral reasoning, the nature of moral reality forces us to some
conclusions but not others” (Pinker 70). As evidence of this point, he points out that people are
better off when they act altruistically, so we make the conclusion that it is more beneficial to be
unselfish and not to be immoral. He also explains that if we act in a way that puts our interests
above others, people won’t take us seriously, forcing us to steer away from what he calls the
“egocentric vantage point” when we use rationality (71). You can appeal to other people to get
them to do something that benefit you. In sum, we are born with only a basic idea of morals, like
the understanding that it is wrong to inflict pain on someone else and good to help people. Our
moral sense is not complete, however, until it evolves and develops through life on the basis of
moral reason and other factors present in environment and society.
Paul Bloom expands Pinker’s argument in his article by agreeing that the moral sense we start off
with is simply primitive, and isn’t advanced until later on. He states, “Babies possess certain moral
foundations—the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut
responses to altruism and nastiness” (Bloom 65). Babies have a very underdeveloped understanding
that helping is good and hindering is bad, but cannot be said to be truly moral. He maintains that
complete morality is made up of a combination of our biology and of the culture we grow up with.
The universal aspect of morality, they believe, is produced by society because people tend towards
a greater morality that is based on reason and where all people are equal. This sense of morality that
we yearn for is much deeper than the incomplete morality that babies possess. In accordance with
Pinker, Bloom asserts that a fully developed morality is achieved by “the accumulation of rational
insight and hard-earned innovations” (65). In other words, the longer we live, the more moral we
can become due to our various experiences and capability to reason through situations. This idea
follows the tone of Pinker’s belief that morality is perfected over time due to realities which make
certain moral actions more beneficial than others.
In conclusion, Pinker argues that through the science of the moral sense, we can conclude that
morality comes to as instinctually, and grows and develops through our lifetime. His first claim
stating that instincts prevail over reason when we make moral decisions, was challenged by Pizarro
and Bloom’s idea that our reactions to situations are largely based on previous knowledge and
reasoning. Pinker’s second claim that we were born with a very simple understanding of morality
which is further advanced overtime, was supported by Bloom’s evidence in “The Moral Life of
Babies.”
These readings have forced me to wonder where morality comes from; do we merely mirror the
beliefs that were forced upon us by society, excepting them as truths? What extent of morality
comes from within, as a result of our genetics? I believe that morality is like a scale. That in facing
every moral dilemma we subconsciously and instantaneously weigh the options, and make a
decision based on a number of different factors. Some of these factors include the ideas discussed
by Pinker, Pizarro, and Bloom. Reasoning plays a major role on the morality scale and people often
times make moral decisions based on what is the most logical answer. However, another factor that
often contradicts our reason is our emotion, and we make a choice based on an instinctual reaction
or based on what will be most pleasurable in the short run as opposed to the long run. Another
factor is societal consensus; we often make choices based on what we’ve been taught is right even
if it goes against our logic or emotion. A combination of these and other influences is what makes
up our moral decision making.
I agree with Pizarro and Blooms claim that reason plays a major role in moral decision making, but
people’s reasoning is practically subconscious. What Pinker attributes to moral instinct, might
actually be our way of unknowingly reasoning through situations. I also agree with Pinker’s claim
that morality is developed over time, and Bloom’s idea that our morals are a combination of
biology and environment.
Sample Pinker Draft #3
Morality is the conformity to the rules of right conduct. The people of the earth are be
separated by a multitude of things. The color of a person’s skin. The place they live. Which religion
they claim themselves to be. One thing however, unites us all. That is morality. Morality is the
conformity to the rules of right conduct. Morals may differ from person to person, but every single
person has them. Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor in the Department of
Psychology at Harvard University, Steven Pinker, in his article, “The Moral Instinct”, published in
the New York Times on January 13th, 2008 addresses the topic of morality and argues that morals
are affected by many aspects of the self. He supports his claim by explaining how science ties into
morals and demonstrates that all humans are born with morals. Pinker’s purpose is to inform
readers about the basics of how humans get their morality in order to inform the audience of
something that they have yet do not understand. He adopts a scholarly and informative tone for his
audience, the readers of The New York Times and others interested in the topic of morality. I have
chosen three pieces to compare to Pinker’s that I feel complement two of his main claims. Two
authors, Moll and De Waal, speak about the more scientific side of morality while the other author,
Bloom, addresses the fact that even babies have a basic sense of morality.
In his quest to define morality, Pinker turns to science and genetics. Pinker states that “the
impulse to avoid harm...can also be found in rhesus monkeys, who go hungry rather than pull a
chain that delivers food to them and a shock to another monkey.” Based on this, Pinker is
insinuating that all mammals, including humans and monkeys, have a basic goodness about them.
This basic goodness, or morality, is a systematic feeling or urge to preserve the well-being of others
in the same species. Normal people have no desire to harm any other person for no reason.
Pinker also addresses the concept of fairness. He states that “fairness is very close to what
scientists call reciprocal altruism, where a willingness to be nice to others can evolve as long as the
favor helps the recipient more than it costs the giver and the recipient returns the favor when
fortunes reverse.” Basically Pinker is saying that deep down in our gut we all have a basic sense of
right and wrong. Pinker extends his claim by presenting the argument that other mammals have
basic morality. Depending on the outcome we have different theories on how the subject should be
treated.. We all live by this basic rule without even realizing it. If someone you just met does
something extremely nice for you, then you, in turn, will immediately see them in a more positive
light. The same goes with a negative experience. As mammals we feel that what is done to us must
be done back. This is based on the science of our brains, which leads me to the next source that
helps discuss the science of morality.
In the book “The Neural Basis of Cognition, Sentiments, Concepts and Values” written by Jorge
Moll, Roland Zahn, and Ricardo De Oliveira-Souza, morality is discussed on multiple platforms.
The three authors argue that morality is based on basic human instinct, brain chemistry and the type
of culture each person is raised in. This both extends and complicates Pinker’s claim that science
has great effect on morality.
While discussing basic human instinct Moll proposes that we have a basic human instinct
that directly influences our moral conscience. Genetics are said to have taken control of morality
for humans at a very early time. Like chimps, Moll proposes, humans want the best for their kin. It
is bred into all of us to not want to harm or hurt the members of our species. Moll goes on to
explain that “altruistic choices underlie pro social acts.” This pertains to a very large group of social
mammals, including human beings. Moll logically appeals to his claim by providing multiple, very
credible sources, such as Aristotle, Fehr and Ficshbacher, and Maimondies.
Moll goes on to claim that one of the biggest parts of developing personal morals is the
type of culture you grew up in. The way you grow up influences your “moral sentiments”. Each
region has a different sense of right and wrong and so people from different areas do not always
meet eye to eye. He extends his point by stating that as humans develop their morals, they begin to
set standards for themselves. If we adhere to our standards and do exactly what we believe in then
we start to feel “a sense of pride” in ourselves. In contrast if we go against our morals than we
begin to feel guilty or even angry. Two of the most used sources in this section of the paper are
Haidt and Hume.
The third element Moll addresses is the science of brain chemistry and how it relates to
morals. In his text he identifies which parts of the brain correlate with moral decisions. Moll uses
states that the frontal and anterior lobes are the most active when making such decisions. All of the
evidence presented in this portion of the paper is easily identifiable as scientific facts due to
multiple tests on the brain. For example, when taking MRI’s on the brain while being asked
questions that test morals, different areas of the brain are activated for the yes and no answers. He
logically shows us that morals don’t just come from our upbringing but it also consists of neural
chemistry.
Another source that I found to be very interesting was de Waal’s, especially his findings in
his tests on elephants and chimpanzees. In de Waal’s video he claims that morality is traced back to
genetics and that some select mammals other than humans have morals. He cites evidence from his
former studies with chimpanzees and elephants. De Waal emphasizes the concept that most
mammals have a moral instinct to help their kin or group as much as they possibly can in order to
make themselves strive. In his video he shows how two chimpanzees help one another and
cooperate in order to reach a common goal of obtaining food. He then applies a variable in which
one chimp has already eaten and is no longer hungry. The other, still hungry chimp, prompts the
full chimp to help him and eventually they cooperate enough so that the food is close enough for
the other chimp to get the food. Similarly, later in the video, two elephants work together in order to
drag a large refridgerator between them, in order to reach the common goal of food. This expands
Pinker’s claim that humans tend to help one another in most situations, into a larger claim that a
portion of the mammalian family will also cooperate with each other, perhaps showing empathy, in
order to advance others of the same species around them. This is significant because it shows
genetic similarities in morality between the different species of mammals.
Overall, Moll does an excellent job extending on Pinker’s claim, that science has a lot to do
with morality. The one thing that may complicate this claim is Moll’s take on culturally defining
morality. This, however, is so minor that it does not take from the fact that Moll’s paper strengthens
Pinker’s article.
De Waal also does an excellent job on extending Pinker’s claim about science being related
to morals. He proves that most mammals have an instinct to help one another even if it does not
benefit them directly.
One of Pinker’s other main claims is that all people are born with a basic sense of morality.
He cites Noam Chomsky in saying that, with regard to language, we are born with a “universal
grammar.” He goes on to explain morality, too, is practiced from birth so constantly that we hardly
have any awareness as to when we use it. Pinker elaborates by describing what most toddlers do.
“Toddlers spontaneously offer toys and help to others and try to comfort people they see in
distress.” This is a built in friendliness that all humans have. When a four year old was asked if it
would be okay to hit a girl even if the teacher told him it was he simple responded no.
Pinker also provides an example about twins and morality. When separated at birth and
raised in different environments identical twins showed similar “conscientiousness” and
“agreeableness” in a higher correlation than adoptive siblings who share the same environment.
This proves that moral structure is highly defined in genetics rather than how someone is raised up.
To find out more things about this subject I picked an author that would extend Pinker’s claim.
Paul Bloom, Yale Professor and author of “The Moral Life of Babies”, has also done
extensive research in the subject of babies and morality. Bloom set up a very simple experiment. A
baby would watch a puppet show and identify which character was the good guy and which
character was the bad guy in a situation where the other character is struggling to get up a hill. The
puppet show ends and the bad guy is on top of the hill pushing a struggling good guy puppet down
the hill. The baby is basically asked which one is bad and which one was good. Because babies
cannot talk the child is given rewards or punishments to administer to the puppets. The baby very
swiftly responds with the correct answer. This supports the Pinker’s claim that babies have a basic
moral compass. Using babies also disables the variable of cultural influence. Wanting to learn more
about what the babies feel about the situation, Bloom allows the tests to go further. He begins to
test the babies responses in choosing whether the good or bad guy is punished or rewarded after the
puppet show. Almost every time the babies chose the good character to be rewarded and the bad
character to be punished. In another variation of the tests a baby was allowed to administer the
rewards. The baby went as far as to reward the good guy and actually hit the bad character. This of
course shows that even babies have a basic sense of right and wrong, and whether or not
punishment should be administered.
Bloom’s findings extend Pinker’s claim that babies are born with morality. Basic research
proved that babies chose the right person to reward and the right person to punish in each puppet
show. All of Bloom’s research completely support Pinker’s claim.
Pinker does an excellent job of analyzing morality through science. With proper evidence
from other authors, such as: Bloom, de Waal, and Moll, Pinker’s argument is a solid as it could
possibly be. Morality is definitely somewhat scientific as proved by Moll and Pinker. Genetics also
come into play through de Waal and Pinker’s paper and all babies are proven to have morality as
proven by Bloom and Pinker. My views on morality have drastically changed based on the
informative papers I have read over these past weeks.
Sample Pinker Draft #4
Can Morality Change?
Can our sense of morality be changed by our environments if it is set in our genetic makeup? 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, 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,
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 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.
Words for Signaling Connections
Some connective words for expressing relationships between your
ideas/the views of authors you are discussing
Connecting words are signposts that signal to the reader where your ideas are going or what you
want the reader to focus on. Connecting words are used to organize the transitions in your
writing. They can be compared to signs on the road – when you see a road sign showing men at
work, telling you to stop, telling you that an exit is coming up, or that there is a HOV lane ahead,
this helps you know what to expect and get to your destination.
Connecting words are important not only as a way of indicating where your ideas are going, but
also as a way of adding variety to your style.
Here are some common words and phrases used to orient readers.
1. DEVELOP (To Add/Explain how an author’s point develops)
a) Furthermore,
b) Moreover,
c) In addition,
d) Additionally,
e) What’s more,
f) Equally important
2. CONNECT (To show how your point connects with a preceding point/an author’s point
OR to show how one author’s point is similar to another author’s point.)
a) Correspondingly,
b) Similarly,
c) Equally,
d) Likewise,
e) In the same way,
f) Author A’s argument is homologous with that of author B, who states…
g) Smith’s argument parallels that of Jones, who claims that…
h) Jones’ argument is congruent with/echoes/is aligned with that of Smith…
3. CHANGE DIRECTION (To show that one of your ideas contrasts with another author’s
OR to explain how one author’s point contrasts with another author’s point.)
a) In contrast, Smith denies that Jones claims are accurate.
b) While Jones argues that media violence seriously affects children, Smith suggests that the
risks of media violence have been vastly overstated.
c) Whereas Jones states that media violence seriously affects children, Smith suggests…
d) In opposition to Smith’s claims regarding media violence, Jones argues…
e) Contrastingly, Jones argues….
f) Contrary to Jones’ argument concerning media violence, Smith states…
g) On the other hand,…
h) Although this may be true…
i) By comparison
j)
Where author X says Y...
4. TO ILLUSTRATE (To Provide an example)
For instance…Take the case of…To illustrate,…As an illustration of X…For example…
To demonstrate…Consider the case of Y.
5. To Repeat or add Emphasis
As I have said…As mentioned previously…As we have seen…As noted previously…In other
words… Indeed… Surprisingly…Certainly…Undeniably…Always… Unquestionably…Without
doubt…
6. TO CONCLUDE
In conclusion…In sum…To conclude…Thus…Therefore…Hence…In brief…Summing
up…Consequently...Finally.
7. TO CONCEDE/QUALIFY A POINT
It must be acknowledged…It must be conceded that…It is of course true that…Granted…to be
fair…there is some truth to…It’s hard to argue with X that…
8. TO REBUT A POINT
Nonetheless…However…Nevertheless…In spite of X’s claim…Even though…Conversely…
Attributions/Talking about Authors
The handout provided earlier in the course explains the basics of attributions. In this section I
will talk about how the reporting verbs you use to describe an author’s claims indicate the extent
to which you agree/disagree with him/her, and the degree of certainty you attribute to her/his
claim.
A) Reporting verbs that imply you agree with the author
Smith reveals
Smith shows
Smith uncovers
Smith proves
Smith makes clear that
Smith confirms
Smith points out
B) Reporting verbs that may indicate you disagree with the author
Smith alleges
Smith assumes
Smith contends
Smith implies
Smith claims
C) Frequently used reporting verbs that are neutral with respect to your agreement (i.e. you may
or may not agree with the author)
Smith states,
Smith argues,
Smith asserts,
Smith examines,
Smith analyzes,
Smith advances the claim that,
Smith maintains,
Smith suggests
Smith maintains
Smith avers
Smith notes
Smith remarks
D) Reporting verbs that may indicate you think the author is presenting a qualified claim (i.e. is
not entirely sure about the claim)
Smith proposes
Smith suggests
Smith raises the possibility
Smith estimates
Expressions Often Used When Analyzing Authors/Engaging in Critique
Discussing Weaknesses
Smith’s argument is vulnerable to several potential counterarguments…
Smith’s argument rests on several highly questionable assumptions…
Jones’ argument suffers from a number of limitations…
The evidence presented by Gaines is too anecdotal, too dependent on the idiosyncratic
experiences she had while watching daytime talk shows…
Jones fails to account for/ignores/does not account for…
Smith presents insufficient evidence
The examples presented are neither typical nor accurate…
The authorities drawn on lack credibility/are not relevant in this context…
The analogies Smith uses are deeply problematic
The basic categories proposed by Smith fail to get to grips with….
Jones claims that X is the case. But it does not follow, as he suggests, that Y is also the case…
Discussing Strengths
Rigorous, carefully qualified, scholarly, sound, significant, well supported, nuanced, responds
well to counterarguments, reliable, applicable, relevant, well researched, etc.
CCW/07
Signal Words (Melissa Watson)
Transitions, or signal words, help you, the reader, follow the direction of a writer’s thought. They
are like signposts on the road that guide the traveler. Transitions (or signal words) are words
and phrases that show the connection between ideas.
EMPHASIS WORDS
Among the most valuable signals for you to know are emphasis words, through which the writer
tells you directly that a particular idea or detail is especially important. Think of such words as red
flags that the author is using to make sure you pay attention to an idea.
above all
should be noted
important to note
a significant factor
a key feature
a primary concern
most noteworthy
ADDITION WORDS
Addition words tell you that the writer’s thought is going to continue in the same direction. He is
going to add on more points or details of the same kind. Addition words are typically used to
signal a list of ideas/points.
Also
another
furthermore
finally
in addition
next
first
last of all
and
first of all
likewise
second
for one thing
moreover
the third reason
COMPARISON AND CONTRAST WORDS
Comparison words signal that the author is pointing out a similarity between two subjects. They
tell you that the second idea is like the first one in some way.
like
likewise
in the same way
just
as
alike
equally
similarly
in like manner
just as
Contrast words signal a change in the direction of the writer’s thought. They tell you that the
author is pointing out a difference between two subjects or statements.
but
however
in contrast
difference
variation
still
otherwise
nonetheless
yet
on the contrary
nevertheless
differ
conversely
These last three expressions give expression to two ideas which contrast but do not contradict
each other:
on the other hand
while
whereas
ILLUSTRATION WORDS
Illustration words tell you that an example or illustration will be given to make an idea clear.
Such words are typically used in textbooks that present a number of definitions and examples of
those definitions.
for example
to illustrate
once
specifically
for instance
such as
CAUSE-AND-EFFECT WORDS
Cause-and-effect words signal that the author is going to describe results or effects. These
expressions also show that the second statement follows logically from the first statement.
because
effect
therefore
thus
so that
consequently
if . . . then
cause
reason
since
as a result
result in
FOCUS WORDS
Focus words direct attention on what follows in the sentence. This is done by announcing the
subject in advance. As regards and as far as………is concerned usually indicate a change of
subject.
with regard to
regarding
as far as ……… is concerned
as regards
as for
Adapted from: http://www.csupomona.edu/~lrc/crsp/handouts/recognizing_words.html
THE KEY TO DOING WELL ON ASSIGNMENT 2
a) You can make this where you assert your position, using the outside
source as support, or you can make the outside source more of the focus.
Example 1: Outside source CAN BE READ AS complicating, or I WILL
USE THE SOURCE TO CHALLENGE, complicate, etc.
b) You NEED TO DO INTERPRETIVE WORK – don’t just line two texts up,
and talk about vague similarities. It may be that the outside text does not
directly reference Pinker, and the author likely has not read Pinker. So you
have to show how the outside text is relevant, and how the author would
respond to Pinker if s/he were addressing "The Moral Instinct." You may
need to spell out the implications of claims made in the outside text, and
connect these to Pinker.
c) You must make a good, solid connection, and present a case for it –
pretend you are a lawyer, faced by a skeptical jury and judge. They won’t
take your word for it – you need to persuade them to see things as you do,
and you need to present strong evidence.
d) You must choose very carefully when selecting quotations. Present the
reader with quotations that fully support your case, are directly relevant to
your point, and discuss them at length. They will be crucial for the next
step, namely,
e) You must spend a lot of time detailing exactly HOW the outside text can
be seen as complicating, extending, qualifying, etc. See the verbs in the
handout. UNPACK what it means to complicate or challenge.
WRITING TIPS FOR PINKER PAPER
Analysis: The paper should focus on explaining HOW the outside source extends,
illustrates, complicates, qualifies or challenges Pinker. See page 83 – 84 of the reader. This is
the most important part of the paper.
Provide a detailed account of both Pinkers’ claim and the claim in the outside source.
If you provide only a brief, general account of claims, your analysis of connections (which is
the heart of the paper) will be weak.
The introduction should contain a) introduction to topic, and/or attention-getter, b)
brief background on Pinker, c) summary of overall argument and support, d) statement of
purpose (‘In this paper I will…”)
Each body section should
a) Introduce a key claim(s) from “The Moral Instinct” that you will focus on, b) Explain the
claim, provide a quotation or two to illustrate the claim, c) describe the support Pinker
provides for this claim, d) transition to the outside source.
Organize your account of Pinker’s claim so that it helps “set up” your analysis of the
outside text. Focus on the parts of Pinkers claim, and the evidence he uses, which best
allow you to establish connections to the outside source. For example, Bloom claims new
research shows babies are born with “glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and
moral feeling.” So when you describe Pinker’s argument, you could start by mentioning that
Pinker supports his claim that morality is innate and instinctual by referring to research on
babies.
Read and re-read the outside source, and make sure you capture the claims as
accurately as possible. Student papers sometimes provide a rather superficial account of
the outside source. Some papers just note very loose, vague similarities. If you look at the
list of outside sources handout, you’ll see short summaries of some of the texts, with some
key phrases in bold, to alert you to important points. You may want to create a list of
similarities and differences that focus on claims and evidence.
ABC = ALWAYS BE using the language of CLAIMS. Focus relentlessly on claims, evidence
and purpose– and on making a strong case that your interpretation of the claims is correct.
Attributions (always focus on primary author.) If you discuss others referred to in a text,
frame this in terms of how the primary author draws on these people. Example: “Pinker
draws on the work of Haidt, a psychologist who has done extensive research on moral
reasoning. Pinker notes that Haidt has claimed there are 5 primary moral principles….” The
same applies to each outside source – talk about how the main author draws on the work of
other authors. Try to talk about what authors DO with the other writers/authors they
use. That is, answer why they refer to the other author? Eg., “Bloom supports his claim by
citing research done by Smith…Bloom illustrates his point by drawing on case studies
originally conducted by Jones…Bloom concedes that writers like D’Souza are uneasy with
the implications of an evolutionary view of morality…”
No “parallel parking” Don’t provide a series of general points loosely based on the text, or
provide points that feature your own thoughts on the issues (except in the conclusion,
where this may be appropriate.) Instead, focus relentlessly on the claims in the text, and
your analysis of the relationship between claims and outside sources.
No hanging/hit and run quotations. ALWAYS introduce a quotation with your own words.
NEVER insert a quote that stands alone. Always introduce, integrate and explain quotes.
Quotations - the period goes inside the quotation, not outside it – even if there is no period in
the original quote (see handbook for a full explanation).
Example: Oreskes states that she “would like to fight Michael Crichton in a cage match.”
NOT Oreskes states that she “would like to fight Michael Crichton in a cage match”.
Long, complex sentences with complex syntax (embedded clauses, multiple verbs, etc)
can sometimes be hard to understand. Check that these are clear. If they are not, try
breaking the long sentence into several shorter, simpler sentences, tied together with
simple connectives. See handouts on unity, cohesion, focus and coordination.
Avoid “cheerleading” (“Pinker’s brilliance is revealed in his masterful argument that leaves
opponents no place to hide from the glare of his logic.”)
Article titles go in quotation marks (“The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.”) Book
titles, movie titles, and magazine titles are italicized (Moby Dick, Food Inc., Newsweek magazine,
etc.)
Avoid comma splices, fragments, and agreement problems – see handouts and handbook