�Even criminals believe in morality, at least as they grow older. . . . When asked, at aged thirty-two, weather they would be �very angry� if their son or daughter committed a criminal offence, over three-fourths of those men who had themselves been convicted of a crime (and often several crimes) answered yes. Even the most hardened criminals�those with at least eight convictions�agreed. They may not be very good fathers, but they don�t want their sons or daughters to be very bad children.� (11)This is quite an interesting book. It focuses on the moral sense, an idea whose heyday was coeval with the Scottish Enlightenment and the American Revolution. The central thesis of the book is that there is we have a moral sense, a sense that certain things are right and that certain things are wrong. Wilson observes that his book differs from other research in that �many conducting this search have looked in the wrong places for the wrong things because they have sought for universal rules rather than universal dispositions.� (225) This is not so much a quest for absolute laws, as C. S. Lewis did in �Abolition of Man,� and in �Mere Christianity,� but it is a rather psychological-heavy inductive study ob what people actually do and say.
The book is divided in to three sections. After the overview chapter, Wilson covers different aspects of our Sentiments, focusing on Sympathy, Fairness, Self-Control, and Duty. These four areas provide a grind in which our feelings of morality are properly expressed. I found the chapter on Sympathy quite interesting, since Sympathy is the lynchpin of Adam Smith�s landmark �Theory of Moral Sentiments.� We in essence see ourselves projection into the life and situation of other suffering persons. Moreover, we head the voice of �the man within the breast� who urges us on to good actions, which Lincoln called �the better angels of our nature.�
The second half of the book is a study of the sources of these feeling of rightness and wrongness. The four chapters are �The Social Animal,� families, Gender, and the Universal Aspiration. He makes the case for much of our sense of morality is rooted in evolutionary biology. Darwin will always select in favor of the people who are pro family, since that is how we will survive fitly. Moreover, we have this �herd instinct� which binds us together into cities, poli, and bodies politic. In fact, the greatest realization that came to me was that we nee morals precisely because there are other people with whom we have to deal with, work with, and to ultimately love!
The last part is one chapter long, and it focuses on the moral sense and character. Wilson makers the point that we cannot �prove� in a positivistic sense that there are moral standards or laws out there any better than we can prove Platonic forms. However, people do act as if there are moral standards, and the idea of morality itself is evidence.
Mr. Wilson has a soft, quite and gentle voice and tone that could double for a relaxation tape. I have heard him in person, and must say that it like the announcers at a golf match or an announcer on National Public Radio. This works to his advantage, since many of his ideas are quite controversial. This book is perfect for discussion, and ponderous thought. Now all we need is more research along these line to sharpen our picture of the moral sense.
I mentioned that the book is rather psychosocial heavy. Let me amend that by saying that there is a substantial amount of psychological data, but no psychobabble. Moreover, Mr. Wilson liberally quotes from Aristotle�s �Nichomachian Ethics� and his �Politics,� so we have a healthy mix of both the old and the new in this book. It is quite refreshing to see someone bridge the ages, and bridge the gap between philosophy and practice, and theory and data.
The main question that vexes me is that you could not tell the difference between a people who does not have a moral sense and one who ignores his or her moral sense. The outward behavior would be the same. The only clue that we have is the lie detector, which measures biological reactions to lies. We may tell lies, but our body knows that we are lying. (106-107)
