From the Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Battle Cry of Freedom; a powerful new reckoning with Jefferson Davis as military commander of the Confederacy“The best concise book we have on the subject… McPherson is… our most distinguished scholar of the Civil War era.†—The New York Times Book Review History has not been kind to Jefferson Davis. Many Americans of his own time and in later generations considered him an incompetent leader; not to mention a traitor. Not so; argues James M. McPherson. In Embattled Rebel; McPherson shows us that Davis might have been on the wrong side of history; but that it is too easy to diminish him because of his cause’s failure. Gravely ill throughout much of the Civil War; Davis nevertheless shaped and articulated the principal policy of the Confederacy—the quest for independent nationhood—with clarity and force. He exercised a tenacious hands-on influence in the shaping of military strategy; and his close relationship with Robert E. Lee was one of the most effective military-civilian partnerships in history.Lucid and concise; Embattled Rebel presents a fresh perspective on the Civil War as seen from the desk of the South’s commander in chief.
#33509 in Books Greene Joshua 2014-12-30 2014-12-30Original language:EnglishPDF # 1 8.40 x .90 x 5.50l; 1.00 #File Name: 0143126059432 pagesMoral Tribes Emotion Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them
Review
153 of 158 people found the following review helpful. An Interesting Work of Synthesis that Falls a Bit ShortBy Kevin Currie-KnightNeuroscieintist/philosopher Joshua Greene has a big thesis in this book that requires some quite involved steps. His concern is to argue for a "metamorality" of the kind that should help groups with differing moralities resolve differences. Greene starts out envisioning two prototypical "tribes. One has a morality of self-reliance and "just desserts;" where people are responsible for their lot in life and get rewarded in proportion to their efforts. The other has a more altruistic view of the world; where things are shared and shared alike; and everyone feels responsibility for everyone. The question: how do we decide which of these groups - or more likely; which elements of each group's worldview - should win the day in cases of moral conflict? (More specifically: when we face moral dilemmas where we could respond via self-interest and "just desserts" or with altruism and egalitarian "desserts"; how should we determine which to go with?)Greene's answer is basically a form of utilitarianism that he calls "deep pragmatism." And to see why requires some explanation; which could be really dull but isn't; owing to Greene's gifts as a good and clear writer. He argues that humans have what is called a "dual process morality" that is divided between intuitive gut instincts (dominated by the ventromedial prefrontal cortex) and a more calculating thought process (owing more to the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex). When it comes to questions of "me versus us;" the intuition side of things is pretty reliable; making us feel guilty for taking more than "our fair share;" breaking rules that we expect everyone else to follow; etc. Understandable; because our intuitions of empathy and the like almost certainly evolved to stimulate cooperation within groups among otherwise selfish individuals (which confers an overall survival advantage).But our instincts also don't do very well with "we versus them" problems; because the same mechanisms that evolved to stimulate cooperation evolved to do so only WITHIN GROUPS (not between them). So; instincts often make us feel guilty at not helping others who are close to us; but the guilt lessens the farther removed the others-in-need are from us. Here; though; the thinking part of our brains can step in; and the thinking part of our brains (Greene's and others' research suggests) tend to be "utilitarian" - preferring whatever option leads to the greatest overall happiness less discriminately.The most interesting (and original) parts of this book are those where Greene reviews his own and others' research on "the trolley problem" - a problem philosophers have concocted to illustrate the dilemma between the sanctity of individual rights and the imperative of maximizing overall happiness. The trolley problem - and there are many variations of it - is of a train going down a track where five people are trapped. One can avert the trolley from killing the five only if one pushes a particular person onto the track (fortunately; you are standing at an area of the track where any obstruction to the trolley will avert it to a side-track; and pushing the man in front of the track will create such an obstruction.)Yes; it is highly contrived; but philosophers have argued for many years over the 'correct' answer to the problem: is it better to maximize happiness by saving five even if it means you have to intentionally sacrifice one; or is it better to let the five die if it means not intentionally killing one innocent person? Greene's study has led him to see the "dual process theory" of morality at work here. Those who have damage to the "instinctual" part of the brain unhesitatingly kill the one to save the five; and those with damage to the "calculating" part of the brain do the opposite. The rest of us struggle because the two parts of our brain are telling us different things.But; far from saying that there is no good answer; Greene suggests that in the trolley case; the best answer is the utilitarian one; because he suspects that our compunctions about intentionally killing to save five lives is a relic of the intuitional module of our brain (as evidenced partly by the fact that those who choose to let the five die can''t generally give any good explanation for why; save that it feels wrong). And Greene also suggests that while intuitional thinking doe serve us well at times - in "me versus us" questions - it is often ill-equipped to deal with "us versus them" problems (problems the world is facing more and more of).This is where I start to find Greene unconvincing. Without getting into too much detail; Greene strikes me as a utilitarian only to the degree that it gets him to the answers he wants to get... and there is a lot of inconsistent reasoning Greene gives about why utilitarianism is the best actual theory; rather than the one that gets him the answers he likes best. Mostly; this comes from a mixture of explaining both how utilitarianism doesn't conflict with some of our most deeply held intuitions (disrespect for individual rights when they conflict with the greatest good; etc); AND explaining that when it does; it is because in those cases; our intuitions are wrong. In other words; when utilitarianism validates our intuitions; that shows how good utilitarianism is; but when it conflicts with our intuitions; that shows that our intuitions - not utilitarianism - is flawed. Something seems very post hoc and inconsistent about this.To be sure; I don't have a much better answer. I think that; in the end; Greene's work actually REDUCES our confidence that there are best and worst answers to moral questions; but that is because unlike Greene; I see no reason to think we can resolve the "dual process" competing answers by somehow stepping above our human moral thinking and saying that there is an objective criteria that can determine which "process" is the right one and which; the wrong one. Might it just be that our impulses toward intuition and calculation conflict and that is that? Yes; Greene (and many of us) do think that it is quite important to produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number; but if our instincts about what is morally right can be flawed in some cases; why can't our feeling that the greatest good is important be flawed too (and even though we reason to it; the value we put on the greatest good is still an instinct)? Not that Greene is wrong to put value on it; but I came away thinking that he wanted it both ways: intuitions can be trusted when they validate our calculations; but they're probably wrong when they don't.Anyway; aside from my general misgivings about Greene's conclusion (or at least his defense of it); I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Greene's research on the neural basis of moral thinking is intriguing; original; and does a service to moral philosophy. And here; he writes a clear and well-written explanation of those and a larger moral case he draws from it. Those who are interested in this book should also read Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality; and The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (Vintage).The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. Most Profound Book I've Ever ReadBy A CustomerSo profound; it took weeks to read. Every few pages he offers up a life changing insight which knocks you right on your behind. Regularly; I had to just put down the darn book and follow the iterative implications from th beginning of life all the way out to the farthest reaches of existence. I know this book changed me. For the better I think. I am forever grateful this book came my way. Like an Alaskan wilderness; tough sledding; great beauty;; and the truth await.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. The most profound work in recent times on human behavior ...By James BairThe most profound work in recent times on human behavior -- why "we" behave in socially destructive and constructive ways. The Middle East and it's terrorist tentacles are a manifestation of innate neural structures that Greene "sees" through the tools of neuroscience. His idealist philosophy of utilitarianism may be a dream but at least the book describes the problem; a first step toward saving civilization. My experience as a social scientist doesn't support his idealism; but it does corroborate his underlying research.
