Great book, great topic. "I versus Us" and "Us versus Them" plus instinctual "gut feeling" morality versus thoughtful analytical morality. My main quibble is that he introduces lots of invented cute terms and phrases and then keeps using them throughout the book. It's not hard to keep track of them, but it feels like the reader is being babied, a little. But all in all the book is a nice intersection between philosophy, politics, science, and practical everyday morality. ( )

Summary: Our brains evolved to feel specific things to facilitate cooperation within our tribe only. We've translated these feelings into the concepts of morals, rights, and duties, and treat them as the absolute truth when they're really based on racist/tribalist evolutionary function. So what's the solution?

Greene argues for utilitarianism, although he's scared of using the word "utility."

This book is interesting, easy to read, but slow moving. Entry-level moral philosophy. Give it a shot. ( )

This is a powerful blend of neuroscience, psychology, and sociology. The first third or so is probably the most fascinating, with ideas about Individualism v/s Collectivism taking a front seat in the discussion. This is worth reading as it could fuel discussion around a variety of areas, including values-based decision making, inherited perspective, biases, bystander-intervention, and responding to the controversy.

It points out that 'Reason is an evolved trait, like bipedalism. It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context. This makes much more sense if you've studied more on Cognitive dissonance and Biases before (One of them is confirmation bias: the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and rejects information that contradicts them)
Humans' biggest advantage over other species is the ability to co-operate. Cooperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.
Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.

“Humans, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.”
( )

This is a powerful blend of neuroscience, psychology, and sociology. The first third or so is probably the most fascinating, with ideas about Individualism v/s Collectivism taking a front seat in the discussion. This is worth reading as it could fuel discussion around a variety of areas, including values-based decision making, inherited perspective, biases, bystander-intervention, and responding to the controversy.

It points out that 'Reason is an evolved trait, like bipedalism. It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context. This makes much more sense if you've studied more on Cognitive dissonance and Biases before (One of them is confirmation bias: the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and rejects information that contradicts them)
Humans' biggest advantage over other species is the ability to co-operate. Cooperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.
Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.

“Humans, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.”
( )

Explores how we make moral decisions. Uses knowledge gained from neuroscience, psychology and philosophy to understand our brain's intuitive methods of making decisions that helped as survive as tribal creatures. However, in an increasingly global society, tribal ways of decision-making don't always serve us when groups disagree. Greene offers us alternative problem solving methods.