What would happen if the ancient Greek philosopher Plato partook in contemporary dialogues about the types of questions that he first posed, and that continue to vex us? In my view, he would have many new questions — including about our increasingly psychological approach to philosophical discussion.
Plato would probably head to a leading global technology hub: Google’s California headquarters. There, he might fall into a discussion with a software engineer about, say, whether ethical questions can be answered through crowdsourcing. He would probably love the idea of the information cloud — so abstract, so Platonic — and find Google to be the ideal tool to catch up on the vast scientific and technical advances of the last couple of millennia.
However, Plato would probably be most amazed by the world’s moral progress. After all, he believed that being a “philosopher” meant assuming the responsibilities of moral reformer. Yet, though morality was always at the center of his thinking, many of the moral truths that we now take for granted never occurred to him.
For example, though Plato opposed the enslavement of Greeks, he — like every other ancient Greek — condoned the enslavement of “barbarians” (non-Greeks). Today, by contrast, even an emphatically non-philosophical person — say, Plato’s “media escort” — could easily explain why slavery is wrong: “A person is a person. Everybody’s life is just as important as anybody else’s.”
As obvious as this conclusion might seem, the world has taken millennia to reach it — and, in many ways, has yet to accept it fully. Nonetheless, we can now collectively look back at our slave-owning, wife-beating, child-brutalizing, heretic-burning, colonizing forebears and wonder how even the most profoundly moral among them failed to see that they should not behave that way. What drove this progress?
Plato held that moral progress is essentially an intellectual process, driven by reasoned arguments — a stance that many of the most influential moral philosophers, from Baruch Spinoza and Immanuel Kant to John Rawls and Peter Singer, have supported.
REJECTING REASON
Yet many other philosophers have rejected the autocracy of reason in humans’ moral lives, agreeing with David Hume’s assertion that “reason, in itself, is perfectly inert.” They believe that no purely abstract argument can get us to do anything that we do not want to do.
If a reasoned argument cannot move us, what can? One simple answer stands out: emotions.
Moral emotions, notably empathy, can accomplish what no bloodless ratiocination can: they make us feel — and thus want to account for — the experience of others. The more we feel, the more we care — and the more moral our motivations. In short, a stronger sense of empathy spurs moral progress.
With this shift in focus from reason to emotion, moral philosophy is increasingly giving way to moral psychology, which, by incorporating ideas from evolutionary biology, has more and more to say about human nature and our moral lives. It all comes down to natural selection.
Moral emotions like empathy are as much an outcome of the blind workings of adaptation as our upright stance and opposable thumbs — traits that are entrenched in a species through the proliferation of particular genes.
We humans are most strongly empathetic toward those who share the greatest proportion of our genes: our children, our parents, our siblings and, by lessening gradations, our extended family and tribe. Our empathy toward them might even drive us to make sacrifices that jeopardize our individual survival, but that makes perfect sense in terms of preserving our shared genes.
A TOUCH OF XENOPHOBIA
Of course, empathy is not the only part of our inherited nature that shapes our behavior toward others. In fact, there is also a compelling evolutionary explanation for xenophobia.
Humans evolved from primates who formed communities that worked together to survive. Given the obvious benefits of having access to more territory in which to gather and hunt, outsiders — particularly those who bear characteristics that mark them as genetically distant — were treated as foes. In this sense, the notion of “us versus them” has been fundamental to human evolution, and it continues to shape our interactions.
Just as both empathy and xenophobia can be explained by natural selection, both can be modulated by cultural factors. However, do they have equal claims to being moral emotions?
Within the strict domain of moral psychology, they do. After all, a psychological telling of the story of our moral development provides no basis for encouraging us to dampen one natural inclination and nurture another.
However, moral psychology does not have to tell the whole story. There is no reason why we cannot have moral psychology and moral philosophy: moral psychology to explain why moral progress is both possible and painfully slow, and moral philosophy to clarify what constitutes moral progress and to push us in the appropriate direction.
MORE THAN GENES
We are reasoning, deliberating human beings, and our genes are not the masters of our fate. We should not become so enthralled by the explanatory power of the behavioral sciences that we succumb to the belief that moral progress is predetermined.
Psychology tells a diminished story that leaves out our past moral advances and the hard argumentative work required to expand those advances in the future. Plato would reject this view. So should we.
Rebecca Newberger Goldstein is a philosopher and MacArthur Fellow.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with