Something I found thought-provoking

I am currently reading a book called The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker. It analyzes the theory of the blank slate, and whether our minds are really a blank slate. Do we really have a choice of being good and evil, or do our genes come into play too? When children turn out to be successful in life, society often attributes it to the good discipline of parents, and we also blame parents when children turn out bad. Is it fair to blame parents? These are some types of questions this book presents.

Well, I was reading, and I am in a very interesting chapter about how people who claim to be moral often wish to punish those who are not, in our eyes, moral. Here's an interesting quote from Bertrand Russell: "The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists--that is why they invented hell."

Here is an excerpt from this book that really made me think about how we all judge, even when we don't mean to judge:

"Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. ONe night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for both of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that; was it OK for them to make love?

The pyschologist Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues have presented the story to many people. Most immediately declare that what Julie and Mark did was wrong, and then they grope for reasons why it was wrong. They mention the dangers of inbreeding, but they are reminded that the siblings used two forms of contraception. They suggest that Julie and Mark will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they were not. They venture that the act would offend the community, but then they recall that it was kept secret. They submit that it might interfere with future relationships, but they acknowledge that Julie and Mark agreed never to do it again. Eventually many of the respondents admit, "I don't know, I can't explain it, I just know it's wrong........." "

I found this excerpt very very interesting, because as I was reading the scenario, I was disgusted by what they did. But the reasoning that Pinker gives says that our reasoning as to why it is wrong is actually silly because, obviously, the two people are not hurt, and they are not harming society in any way either. So why don't most people consider this moral, including me? I am still actually disgusted by what they did, but still...I also wonder why, when I really don't have a reason to be so bothered. It's their business right? I think it's interesting how this particular passage is challenging our idea of what it means to be moral.

I can see how this scenario is analogous to some of our society's problems today.

This is a very interesting book, and I recommend it to everyone! Not only does it touch on this issue, but a variety of issues too, like violence, politics, the arts, and how our current idea that we can choose to be how we like can actually be quite false. Yeah, there are a lot of controversial and crazy ideas in this book, and I don't believe all of the ideas and thoughts that this book has implemented in my head, but it's fun to read. Just make sure you read this with an open mind because a lot of thoughts that you have will be challenged.