Not a complete answer with bias and hypocrisy

Liberal bias, little exercise to view opposing views (problems with liberalism), black biases not just whites with IAT (IAT have since been shot down by new studies concerning 7000 candidates on "black" name preference), discrimation and dismissal of those who don't choose utilitarian preferenced answers in regards to the magic boxes (discrimation against "psychopaths",ironically. discrimation against countries is wrong - lack of consistancy). The argument itself specifically in "why im a liberal" was very antagonistic in suggesting that "yes, im tribal SORT OF". Its Yes, fullstop. The moral highground here is laughable. As far as a general conclusion, it seemed to lament clearly that we cannot get past tribes since we cannot compromise. Perhaps more books are needed to list out specific moral dilemmas like abortion. Im all too familiar with reading Peter Singer (Practical Ethics). And frankly, the argument against pro-life did not seem refuted at all. I would remain consistent with being against abortion if it also led to abstinence from sex. It seemed that a lot of rational arguments being laid out were treated with "here is the argument, but ugh nope, sorry people aren't that noble". Or your word was "heroism". People were, long ago. And I cannot see any compelling reason to refer to back to past knowledge on this topic whilst keeping in check liberties for men and women. I would call this a tribal fear by liberals "But if we go back, we will be going back to slavery..." Not even, jesus. By opening up discussion on healthcare or abortion, I would love to ask the liberal, how does x work, what are your views on culture, freedom of association with your own group, etc. Although, that's getting off topic in regard to what you want. But, I see that as the conclusion, keep Manual and Auto tools of the mind in check when dealing with your own tribe. I cannot fanthom how this will work with other tribes, only with bettering my own. Also was noticing how such enlightenment values listed, or utilitarian references mentioned went back to Acquinas or just the Christian belief in the self as an individual, free. In fact, there is almost this boogeyman with "oh, u favour ur own tribe". Of course like how anyone favours their family as talked about in this book. Loved the book other than what I think are faults (they are vague, Im tired right now I don't want to reference the book as of right now). Very accessible book, easy to read. Will update this review, great stuff

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

A tough long listen. Like chewing on gristle.

Would you try another book written by Joshua Greene or narrated by Mel Foster?

I don't think I could stomach another Mel Foster narration. His diction was clear and he had a constant intonation that was not monotone but ultimately it was dead. I empathise with Joshua Greene's viewpoints as they are finally revealed but I doubt I would try anything else by him.

What was the most interesting aspect of this story? The least interesting?

It was pretty dull all the way through.

What did you like about the performance? What did you dislike?

The diction was clear and consistent but there was no passion for the content. Very occasionally the intonation or rhythm betrayed the fact that this was being professionally recorded.

Was Moral Tribes worth the listening time?

God no. It was like pulling teeth.

Any additional comments?

It felt like Mr Greene was trying to appeal to right wing republicans with his use of their intellectually derelict catch phrases. Speaking of the low paid, poor, sick and disabled as 'the foolish and lazy' without qualification until very near the end.

The conclusions - particularly in reference to rights - were inconsistent with the actual point of the 14 hour diatribe of rationalist moralisation. Many sweeping statements such as 'nobody wants to suffer' are not backed up with hard evidence. What about the Buddhist monk who sits in extreme cold, religious zealots who fast, walk in bare feet, crawl on hands and knees around mountains, blow themselves up, flog themselves. How about the native american sun dance festival? Many hedonistic activities lead to suffering too. I can think of countless examples where people cause themselves suffering deliberately or otherwise.

Many of these people are not trying to achieve 'happiness' but something more - usually a shift in consciousness that changes perception and experience. People who chase happiness invariably bring suffering upon themselves in one form or another. Yes, this may mean an experience with a higher quality but happiness is the wrong term. Any passing understanding of Buddhism or even Catholicism could illustrate this.

The book misses this point entirely. It was like watching a fly with no wings dancing in circles. This sort of approach to trying to resolve the tribal clashes we currently see being enacted will do absolutely nothing to help. The ultimate message was 'let's put our differences aside and just get along', '...lets all just be utilitarian and pragmatic.' It is both patronising and stale. Mr Greene is clearly an intelligent man but I felt his application of the disaster of common sense completely misses the mark on what the real issues are. Man cannot live by bread alone.

It is illogical to spend so much time analysing and rationalising over imaginary scenarios and yet to say we don't need to try and properly understand and define happiness because we all know what it means and we all know that we all know what it means.A more in depth anthropological investigation may reveal to Mr Greene that some cultures do not operate on the same conscious level as western democracy and that the assumption that western democracy is the pinnacle of human development is not only wrong but the very reason the world is becoming more dangerous.

These assumptions create the us and them. I seriously wonder how much time Mr Greene has really spent immersed in other cultures and countries. Mr Greene also marginalises and berates viewpoints that differ from his own on several occasions. While I agree with his opinion he is not using a pragmatic non tribalist approach. He is in fact very tribal and aggressive with his language against those he fundamentally disagrees with.The point that some people earn 100 times plus more than others and that nobody can possibly believe that they work 100 times harder than someone else is an important one. This is what the book should have been about.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

6 people found this helpful

A landmark

This is a book that was waiting to be written! A superb discussion of the last 2,500 years of moral theory fused with the recent findings in evolutionary psychology. The ultimate moral stance of the thinking Last Man, and a must listen for all utilitarians! Extraordinary, and beats Haidt, Sam Harris and others by miles.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!

1 person found this helpful