Joshua Greene on Moral Tribes, Moral Dilemmas, and Utilitarianism

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Russ Roberts and Joshua Greene discuss Greene’s thesis that morality evolved to solve cooperation problems within groups, but that modern pluralistic societies face a new “tragedy of common sense morality” among competing tribes. The conversation centers on dual-process moral psychology, trolley problems, and Greene’s utilitarian “deep pragmatism” as a metamorality for resolving public policy disputes.

Main Topics: Morality as cooperation (Priority: 5/5): Greene argues morality is fundamentally a set of emotional and cognitive mechanisms that promote cooperation within groups, using the tragedy of the commons as the foundational model. Tragedy of common sense morality (Priority: 5/5): The modern problem is not just self-interest versus group interest, but clashes among different moral tribes with incompatible norms, values, and institutions. Automatic vs. manual moral thinking (Priority: 5/5): Greene explains moral judgment through dual-process psychology: fast emotional ‘automatic settings’ and slower deliberative ‘manual mode,’ likened to a camera’s preset and manual functions. Trolley problems and moral intuition (Priority: 5/5): The switch case versus the footbridge case illustrate how people accept impersonal harm for greater good but reject direct physical harm, revealing the role of emotion in moral judgment. Utilitarianism as deep pragmatism (Priority: 4/5): Greene defends utilitarianism as a common currency for public disputes, emphasizing impartiality and overall well-being, while acknowledging rights-based and overreach criticisms. Policy debates and empirical humility (Priority: 4/5): Roberts presses Greene on the limits of social science, knowledge problems, and the risk that consequentialist reasoning can become overconfident or ideological in policy making. Human progress and global moral systems (Priority: 3/5): The discussion ends on whether the world is getting better; Greene sides with Steven Pinker’s optimistic view and argues that societies are building a broader metamorality that helps tribes coexist.

Key Arguments: Morality is best understood as a biological and cultural system for enabling cooperation, not as abstract principle alone. Our moral instincts work well for small-group cooperation but often misfire in pluralistic societies with competing moral systems. Dual-process psychology helps explain why people judge indirect harm differently from direct harm in trolley-style dilemmas. Utilitarianism can serve as a metamorality because it treats everyone’s interests impartially and uses well-being as a common metric. Rights language can obstruct honest debate by disguising emotionally driven intuitions as absolutes. Policy disputes should be evaluated by consequences and evidence, not just by invocations of principle. Public policy must account for dispersed knowledge and uncertainty; empirical claims are often contested and should be treated cautiously. Even if humans are not naturally universal altruists, societies can still build institutions that expand concern beyond the tribe.

Data Points: Year of episode: 2014-12-23 - Russ Roberts introduces the episode date at the start of the transcript. Favorite episodes survey deadline: early February 2015 - EconTalk listeners are invited to vote for favorite 2014 episodes. Survey period: through early February of 2015 - Roberts says the annual survey remains open until early February. Approximate utilitarian approval in switch trolley case: about 90% - Roberts notes most people approve of diverting the trolley from five to one. Approximate utilitarian approval in footbridge case: about 10% to 35% - Greene says a minority of American respondents endorse pushing the man off the bridge. Drug example: citalopram: SSRI like Prozac - Used in studies to heighten emotional responses and increase rejection of pushing the man. Drug example: lorazepam: anti-anxiety drug - Used in studies to reduce anxiety and make people more willing to endorse pushing the man. Tax example income level: $500,000 per year - Roberts and Greene discuss hypothetical taxes on high earners in a utilitarian analysis. Price example: $1,000 per bucket - Greene uses a price-gouging disaster example involving emergency buckets. Charity example donation size: $500 - The Singer shallow-pond analogy contrasts saving a nearby child versus donating to distant aid. Charity cap in Jewish law: 10% required, up to 20% discouraged beyond that - Roberts cites a tradition limiting charity to avoid impoverishing the donor.

Pivotal Quotes: "The tragedy of common sense morality." — Joshua Greene: Greene names the central modern moral problem: multiple tribes with different moral systems sharing the same social space. "Maximize happiness impartially." — Joshua Greene: He summarizes utilitarianism as the best common metric for resolving disputes across tribes. "Think slow, when it comes to morality." — Joshua Greene: Greene emphasizes deliberation over instinct in evaluating difficult moral and policy questions.

Implications: The conversation suggests modern politics and ethics require institutions that compare outcomes across competing moral tribes. For listeners, the key lesson is to slow down, question intuitions, and evaluate policies by evidence and consequences, while staying aware of uncertainty and knowledge limits.