My Letter to The Economist

I subscribe to the magazine The Economist to keep myself up to date on worldly issues. I don't watch television and reading newspapers takes too much time so I usually skim through my weekly copy to see what's going on. In the March 24th-30th issue the paper had an article under the science and technology section. Considering philosophy & neuroscience it was titled "Posing the right question". It was about recent findings in the neural basis of moral choice. I quote:

"[i]t seems that the decision how to act is not a single, rational calculation of the sort that moral philosophers have generally assumed is going on, but a conflict between two processes, with one (the emotional) sometimes able to override the other (the utilitarian)."

The findings were based on studies with persons who had a certain type of brain damage. They were more easily able than normal people to solve the "runaway-railwaywagon paradox". That is, they were quite content with killing somebody (theoretically, that is) if that could save, let's say, five other lives.

The point was madde that this fits with the tenets of evolutionary psychology: the mind is composed of modules evolved for certain purposes. I have nothing against this: But if this is all that the mind is suppposed to be about -a collection of modules viewed from a third-person empiristic perspective- I get a hunch that something isn't taken into account. So, I blew off the dust from my copy of Ken Wilber's Integral Psychology and wrote a short reply. I post it here in case The Economist won't publish my letter (something I'm not holding my breath for).

-------

Sir,

In your article on the neurology of morality you described one of the basic tenets of evolutionary psychology and cognitive science: that minds are composed of modules that have evolved for different purposes. In addition you suggested a trade-off between Kant and Darwin. Having been immersed for some years now in the writings of philosopher Ken Wilber and his integralist framework I strongly encourage you to consider a third option. Namely, to see the theories of the aforementioned gentlemen as not being opposed to each other but instead as complimentary. Both offer invaluable insights into the human nature from perspectives that come from different standpoints. It's not about putting off one dusty copy for another one; I see it as honouring the viewpoints of both and then some. Realizing the fact that individuals are capable of being aware of and overriding their mind modules means that the mind is something more than just a module. Posing the right questions is surely important, but I see it just as crucial that we pose our questions right.

Sincerely,

JP Jakonen
University student
Turku
Finland