The world's leading scholar on artificial intelligence once described people as machines made of meat. This nicely captures the consensus in the fields of psychology and neuroscience, which tell us that our mental lives are the products of our physical brains, and that these brains are shaped not by a divine creator, but by the blind process of natural selection.
But, with the exception of a small minority of philosophers and scientists, nobody takes this view seriously. It is offensive. It violates the tenets of every religion, and it conflicts with common sense. We do not feel, after all, that we are just material bodies, mere flesh. Instead, we occupy our bodies. We own them. We are spontaneously drawn to the view defended by Rene Descartes: We are natural-born dualists, so we see bodies and souls as separate.
This dualism has significant consequences for how we think, act and feel. The philosopher Peter Singer discusses the notion of a moral circle -- the circle of things that matter to us, that have moral significance. This circle can be very small, including just your kin and those with whom you interact on a daily basis, or it can be extremely broad, including all humans, but also fetuses, animals, plants and even the earth itself. For most of us, the circle is mid-sized, and working out its precise boundaries -- does it include stem cells, for instance? -- can be a source of anguish and conflict.
The nature of these boundaries is related to our common-sense view that some objects have souls and others do not. If one attributes a soul to something, then it has value; if one sees something as a mere body, it does not. This is often explicit; historically, debates about abortion, for example, are often framed in terms of the question: When does the soul enter the body?
This reasoning can apply as well to how we regard adults. Normally, when we interact with others we see them as both body and soul. We appreciate that they have beliefs, desires and consciousness, and we recognize that they are solid physical things that take up space and are subject to gravity.
Both stances coexist well enough in the normal course of things.?But when we emphasize one perspective over another, there are moral consequences. Social?psychologists have shown that simply getting an experimental subject to take another person's perspective will make the subject care more about the person and be more likely to help. Focusing on the soul, then, leads to moral concern and can expand the moral circle.
The opposite can occur when someone is viewed solely as a body, and one emotion that supports this outcome is disgust. The psychologist Paul Rozin has shown how disgust, as Charles Darwin first noted, is an evolutionary adaptation that deters us from bad meat, so it is naturally triggered by animals and animal waste products. But disgust can readily extend to people. People, after all, are made of meat. Hence, every movement designed to stigmatize or malign some group -- Jews, blacks, gays, the poor, women and so on -- has used disgust. Once a group of people is viewed as disgusting, attention shifts away from them as moral individuals. They become soulless bodies, and the moral circle closes in to exclude them.
Our reaction to soulless bodies is well illustrated in a story told about Descartes after he died. It was known that Descartes had an illegitimate daughter, Francine, who died when she was five years old. According to the story, Descartes was so struck with grief that he created an automaton, a mechanical doll, built to appear identical to his dead daughter. The two were inseparable. When Descartes crossed the Holland Sea, he kept the doll in a small trunk in his cabin. Curious about the contents of the trunk, the captain of the ship crept down to Descartes' cabin one night and opened it. To his horror, the robot Francine arose. The captain, struck with revulsion, grabbed her, dragged her up to the deck of the ship and?threw her overboard.
This story captures how disturbing -- in some cases, revolting -- we find a body without a soul, and it embodies the emotional pull that our common-sense dualism often has. But it also raises a serious problem. Science tells us that common-sense dualism is wrong. There is no consensus as to precisely how mental life emerges from a physical brain, but there is no doubt that this is its source. Thus, if a "soul" means something immaterial and immortal, then it does not?exist. All of us are soulless bodies, no less than the robot Francine.
This is perhaps the main reason why the scientific rejection of dualism may be so hard to swallow: It seems to diminish the moral status of people. If we are to accept scientific facts, we need to construct morality on a new foundation, one without souls.
Paul Bloom is a professor of psychology at Yale University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Minister of Labor Hung Sun-han (洪申翰) on April 9 said that the first group of Indian workers could arrive as early as this year as part of a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in India and the India Taipei Association. Signed in February 2024, the MOU stipulates that Taipei would decide the number of migrant workers and which industries would employ them, while New Delhi would manage recruitment and training. Employment would be governed by the laws of both countries. Months after its signing, the two sides agreed that 1,000 migrant workers from India would
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
RSS