Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them Paperback – 5 Mar. 2015

A superb summary and fusion of 2,500 years of moral philosophizing and the scientific advances in evolutionary sciene of the past 150 years. Surely, this must represent the conclusions drawn by any thinking person regarding ethical questions in politics? Deep pragmatism as the ultimate philosophy of the Last Man. Steven Pinker has called this 'a landmark in our understanding of morality', and one cannot but agree!Greene carefully debunks all the false and superficial objections to utilitarianism (most of the time based on misinterpretations of 'extreme case scenarios, such as the so-called 'trolley problem'), as well as the fallacies of the rule worship of deontogical theories. (Eg those still clung to by Haidt and others.)There is also a nuanced and comprehensive discussion of the scientific advances in evolutionary psychology/ economic psychology of recent years. A must read for all utilitarians and those interested in economic psychology!

Firstly, I would like to say that book is exceptionally well-written, probably one of the most well-constructed piece of popular science writing I have read in quite a few years. As well, as being well-written it is also a very informative book, providing clear and concise explanations of relevant theories within the domains of psychology, neuroscience, philosophy and ethics. Of particular note, is Greene's account of moral duel process theory and his own modular myopia hypothesis which has the benefit of appearing to be both coherent and feasible.However, make no mistake, the real purpose of this book is to, from the perspective of a moral psychologist and philosopher provide a 21st century defence of utilitarianism or 'deep pragmatism' as Greene prefers to call it. The goal of the author is to develop a meta-morality which transcends local tribal values.To achieve this, Greene postulates that any candidate meta-ethical theory must provide a 'common currency' which is universal for people of different tribes with different values. For Greene, utilitarianism meets this condition because it i) maximises happiness and ii) has the property of impartiality.The problem is that whilst Greene does a fairly good job of justifying the idea that generally happiness should generally be maximised, his defence for the second axiom of 'impartiality' is very poorly discussed and defended: According to Greene, all religions support the 'golden rule' and hence adopts the principle of impartiality. But the question remains - between which groups does this impartiality exist? Greene assumes that impartiality extends to everyone - with no respect to family, race, religion, profession, class and all the other categories which have defined human relations throughout millennia.But did all the major religions have this in mind when establishing the Golden Rule? Is Jew equal to Gentile? Christian equal to the Barbarian and the Muslim equal to the Kuffir? Furthermore, Greene quotes Peter Singer on plenty of occasions through the book, but does the principle of impartiality extend to non-human animals? If it not, why not? If it does, does Greene expect that the typical human, even in principle, will want to value the life of a stranger, or even the life on animal above the life of himself or his own family?Evidently, Greene has not answered the problems associated with the concept of impartiality. As a result, he cannot demonstrate that utilitarianism provides the long-sought after 'common currency' which would be necessary for its role as a meta-ethical theory which transcends tribal boundaries. With these shaky foundations, the rest of the theory inevitably fails to persuadeIn this sense, Greene's book fails in what it attempts to achieve

I thought I was quite widely read around the subjects of history, psychology, politics and philosophy - but Greene's book was a revelation, tying all these fields together to explain one of the major problems of our age - why there is so much unnecessary violence and conflict in our world. His initial parable of 4 herder tribes outlines the essential elements of common political systems, without inviting one to take up pre-determined sides, as real-life examples would. His account of how the human brain has evolved over millennia to deal with the moral problem of Me v Us, selfishness versus collectivity, explains an enormous amount - including why the separate dilemma of Us v Them is a different issue. The section on "trolleyology" - a series of subtly different moral dilemmas - might appear at first to be so hypothetical and unreal as to be the idle fantasies of academics living in ivory towers; but they are well worth persisting with, as they illuminate the subtle ways in which our moral decisions are taken more on emotional than rational grounds. I enjoyed his passionate defence of Utilitarianism as a solution. Utilitarianism tends to come in for a lot of criticism these days, and it is good to hear a thorough set of arguments in its favour - but it whetted my appetite to hear a separate debate between Greene and opponents of Utilitarianism. I very seldom re-read books or recommend them to friends, but this book cast so much useful light on understanding conflicts within society, that I shall certainly re-read it carefully, and have recommended it to friends already. This book serves as a more useful adjunct than Jonathan Haidt's "The Righteous Mind" to understanding contemporary cross-cultural morality (although both are good).

As a moral psychologist I study the kind of things discussed in this book, but it is rare to find them presented with such lucidity. This book is not just a learning experience, but a thoroughly enjoyable journey through our minds. Highly recommend.

If you are a (English) Guardian reader you will enjoy this book as it will confirm that your mind is, indeed, righteous. For someone who bones on about rationalization, Greene does a lot if it himself. Nowhere is more evident than in his discussion of the (American) abortion debate.His discussion of utilitarianism is worth reading but I did wish that he could have refrained from endlessly repeating himself, sometimes two or three times on a single page.

An interesting and thoughtful book that more people should read to understand how tribes form and what we should be aware of.