Sounded very promising. I was hoping for something that explores both the biochemical/physiological causes of "evil" actions, as well as maybe some sociological perspectives based on interviews with adulterers, petty thieves, etc. Not so much. Basically the author just rambles on about his belief that morality isn't absolute, but that the provisional theory of morality holds that most things that are moral are moral in most situations. A few tidbits here and there were kind of interesting, but o...

This book was a great attempt at explaining the origins of morality and ethics through evolutionary processes. After reading this book I can proudly say I an atheist (or non-theist) with morals that aren’t arbitrary or selfish. Evolution can explain altruistic behaviors. Many religious people believe the fallacy that it is impossible to be moral without God. This is simply not true and Michael Shermer does a great job at explaining why. However, he is careful to point out that evolutionary ethic...

The true nature of morality is one of the most-pondered concepts in human history, so it's pretty hard to say anything about it in the 21st century that isn't trite, repetitive, or wrong. Shedding the religious baggage from morality is all well and good, the difficulty is then having something interesting to say about where moral concepts come from, what they mean in daily life, how they inform what actions people should take, or how they should be judged against each other. Shermer provides a c...

Traditional view of social scientists has been that over time culture dabs a natural human behavior as moral and another immoral. So morality is an arbitrary notion that can be created and built upon a specific behavior and nature of humanity. In other words, morality is a social construct, thus it is culturally relative. But evolutionary psychologists such as Michael Shermer and sociobiologists like E. O. Wilson argue that there is a “science of morality”, that is, morality, like any other feat...

A look at human evolution of emotions and belief system. Compelling to make you think about how you think and believe. Careful, it could enlighten you to your belief systems.

Ever since the kids were old enough to focus on the refrigerator we’ve had the Falk Household rules there, sort of a cross between Asimov’s laws of robotics and basic kindergarten. These are, in order of importance:1. Don’t hurt anybody.2. Don’t break anything.3. Do what your parents and teachers tell you.(In kindergarten, rule #3 would probably have been “share” or something like it, and I admit it was a somewhat controversial later addition, but we ended up putting it in to assure that 2-year

I think this book is a must-read for just about everyone.Two good excerpts from the book:"Prologue — One Long Argument: An apologia pro vita sua"And more importantly, I think: The Myth of Pure Good: Noble Savages and Beautiful People (read pages 92-104 which is the whole of this section)

I did not like this book. Not at all. There are simple reasons that made me hate every page of it and I shall explain it here, briefly:In my humble opinion, you cannot explain ONLY from a scientific point of view the traits of morality in human beings. How many scientific arguments you may bring, it cannot be explained ONLY this way, in my opinion. Yes, he brought up religious arguments, but not as a religious person would do (or, however, as a person who read something more than The Holy Bible)...

The Science of Good and Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care, Share, and Follow the Golden Rule by Michael Shermer"The Science of Good and Evil" is an interesting book on the study of morality. It's the study of why humans do what they do, particularly on the social level. Best-selling author and self-proclaimed skeptic Michael Shermer takes a scientific approach to the question of morality. The book specifically deals with the origins of morality and the foundations of ethics. A very sound book...

The book attempts to offer a middle way between absolutism and relativism in morality by arguing that morality is a universal human trait that evolved under the pressures for within group cooperation and between group competition.The attempt is generally successful yet seems more of a just-so story because at every fork in the road there does not seem to be much explanation of the path taken.The second point of the book is that you do not need a transcendental source for morality. This point is

I enjoy Michael Shermer and have read a number of his books, but I felt that "The Science of Good and Evil" was one of his weakest. The book essentially attempts to answer the question of "why are people moral", but the introduction to the book implied, at least to me, that the book would be a bit deeper.The early portion of the book seemed to say that Shermer would provide some kind of a moral framework for objective morality - a morality that could be used by secularists (such as myself) to de...

Ever be in the middle of reading a book and then suddenly realize that you read the damn thing already about 10 years ago? I'm not sure if that shows more about the value of the book or the crappiness of the reader's memory, but anyway ...Yeah, I was about page 175 before I realized I had read this before about 2006. I just took the book out from different libraries which was what I guess screwed up my memory. I'm weird like that. Just one little deviation andI love Michael Shermer. I highly rec...

This was a pretty good read, although the ideas didn't seem to novel. But, it was good.

Shermer is a reformed theist (by that, I mean, he wasn't always an atheist). He's attempting to answer that age-old, annoying question, "If there is no God, why not be as bad as you want?" He presents a pretty good treatment of the issue of morality without religion, and the evolutionary origins of morals and the behavior enforcing morals. Shermer also lays out a moral system based on what he believes to be the fundamental morals of being human, that is, the morals our evolutionary heritage have...

Shermer was a born-again Christian, now lapsed. He is editor of Skeptic magazine. Te goal of this book is to show that morality can be based on scientific understanding of our evolution as social animals, and need not be based on the dubious authority of religion. Overall, I thought this was an interesting and even important book. Of course to me it was "preaching to the choir" and it is unclear how a wide an audience it will reach. I really applauded his update of the Golden Rule: if you want t...

This is a thought provoking book that actually manages to explain a lot about morality from the scientific view point. However there are some views that I completely disagree with (e.g. the author argues that free trade is good; in some cases it is, but there are many scenarios where it actually does more harm than good) and some facts are either wrong or outdated (e.g. the author states that second hand smoking doesn't cause cancer; it does).

This is an interesting idea. The author attempts to apply science to morals. He makes a lot of interesting observations, and his theories are well thought out. I admit, I found it a bit dry. The man does liks his lists, for example. He does some very creative analysis, and brings in laws, religion, and even quotes Star Trek along the way. Recommended for philosophers and those who just plain like learning new things.

A good evolutionary psychology investigation of morality.

from the library 2004Table of Contents Prologue: One Long Argument 1 (15) I. The Origins of Morality Transcendent Morality: How Evolution Ennobles Ethics 15 (9) Why We Are Moral: The Evolutionary Origins of Morality 24 (41) Why We Are Immoral: War, Violence, and the Ignoble Savage Within 65 (40) Master of My Fate: Making Moral Choices in a Determined Universe 105 (36) II. A Science of Provisional Ethics Can We Be Good Without God?: Science, Religion, and Morality 141 (16) How We A...

I read 3 Shermer books tonight and which one said what get's a bit jumbled because they retread themselves so much so let me give my response to the thinker himself, because what's in these three books doesn't bother me so much as what isn't: Shermer is an intellectual coward.It's damn easy to say "We're way more advanced than Neanderthals, and the Nazis were evil. I don't believe in God because you can't prove it exists, and alien abduction stories are interesting examples of something like ant...