The following outline comes from notes I took at the lecture. I wish that I could include all the funny anecdotes and cartoons Shermer included. His lecture was very interesting and enjoyable. If you attended the lecture and think I missed something worthy of inclusion, please let me know. I do feel like I didn't do him justice on some of the points. I haven't read his book, The Science of Good and Evil, but it seemed like his lecture was a shortened version of the book. He started by proposing that morality can be understood scientifically, and assuming that is true, the rest followed.

Seven main points:

• 1. Moral naturalism - Morality can be understood through the scientific method.
• 2. We have an evolved moral sense
  • a. Reciprocity - food sharing
    • i. Seen in many mammals
    • ii. Capuchin monkey - example experiment in a lab
    • iii. Vampire bat - example from observations in the field
  • b. Ethical egoism
    • i. Altruism feels good; therefore being altruistic is a selfish act.
    • ii. What is meant by the phrase "feels good"? What does that imply? Nothing more than what is meant by "feeling hungry" when you haven't eaten in a while.
  • c. Lying is risky behavior.
    • i. Liars get caught often enough that it is hardly worth it.
    • ii. The best way to convince others that you are moral is to BE moral. (Otherwise you run the risk of being found out and there are social consequences for being known as someone who can't be trusted.)
• 3. We have an evolved moral social structure
  • a. Humans first lived in bands of up to 100 people, then larger groupings of up to 1,000. Community size then increased into states and empires.
  • b. Studies (five or so quoted) have been conducted to determine the optimal size for human groups. This maximizes personal connections between members, while allowing the group to be big enough to do something (war, building a village, developing specialization in trades). The magic number? 150
  • c. During the time period (3,000-5,000 years ago) that human communities grew beyond a few hundred, toward the thousands; organized religions and states arose. Both religion and states offer behavioral control mechanisms.
  • d. Religion offers reward and punishment, but not until an afterlife.
  • e. States offer reward and punishment now.
• 4. The nature of moral nature
  • a. Are we (humans) good or evil?
  • b. This may not be a black and white issue.
  • c. Except for few exceptions, all humans seem to have the capacity to be BOTH good and bad.
• 5. Foundations of Morality - Moral principles are not absolute, neither are they relative. They are provisionally true. Religions have absolute morality. Rules and punishments are spelled out and cannot be adjusted depending on circumstances. BUT, could the rules of religion be arrived at without divine authority? For example, could the commandment against adultry be arrived at without God? (Ask your husband or wife!) And what if the circumstances change? (Examples of moral rules that seem true, but in extreme circumstances are no longer valid)
  How to determine if something is moral:
  • a. Ask first (variation on the Golden Rule):
    The Golden Rule is limited, because it is possible that what you would want someone else to do to you is NOT what they want you to do to them. It should be: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
  • b. Happiness Principle - Increasing your happiness is often associated with increasing the happiness of people you care about.
  • c. Liberty Principle - Freedom and autonomy are important to everyone. This includes the freedom to pursue happiness and the autonomy to act on it.
• 6. Provisional justice - Why wait until another life. Justice can be decided by humans here and now.
• 7. Moral transcendency - The meaning of life
  Where can the meaning of life be found if the universe is godless and offers only "blind, pitiless indifference"(quoting Sagan)?
  Meaning can be found in attempting to understand nature, and in knowing that morality is not an individual trait, but a trait of the species. As individuals, we only inherit and fine tune it according to our culture.

  On a personal note, when reading some of Shermer's magazine articles, I have found him to be somewhat militant in his support of science and reason, particularly against religion. I was very happy to see how warm and respectful he was toward his audience. The audience was receptive as well, with no one voicing a dissenting opinion. I found that interesting considering the location of the lecture!

  Hosted by www.Geocities.ws