Donald W. Pfaff

The author aspires for talk about human ethics to move beyond analogy and dig into the neurobiological bases for human altruism. Pfaff argues that we are hardwired with an Altruistic Brain, and he reviews the evidence that supports this position. People, he argues, are basically good, and if allowed to exist in environments that do not actively discourage expression of that natural default, will be happier and less stressed.

The science sections are the strongest, as that is his expertise. The later pages, wherein Pfaff attempts to apply his model to social strategies and policy recommendations, are much less effective. For example, he believes the differences between men and women is wholly reducible to the testosterone in the former. Because that leads to aggressive actions, the world, he says, would be a more peaceful place if more women ran things. That's pretty fluffy social science, and ignores a deep literature on why men act the way they do: often it is an evolved urge to compete with other males for access to desirable women. Given the mating preferences of both sexes, and the schooled strategies acquired by any woman rising to the top of her political system, the likelihood of any meaningfully consistent difference between women and men as governmental leaders is unlikely. Pfaff ignores this line of argument, which has evidential support as strong as that he invokes to defend his own interpretation. Because he oversimplifies his recommendations, they come off as naive and amateurish, which can detract from the solid work that preceded it in the earlier chapters.… (mere)

Plaff defends the provocative thesis that baseline human morality (the "golden rule") has an identifiable neurological substrate. Rather than positing the existence of some "moral" module, he instead argues that altruistic acts come as the result of the loss of information, specifically, the sharp divisions between me and thee. That makes excellent sense. The text may be a tad too technical for the average reader, but it should be possible to read around those details in order to discern the broad parameters of his argument.… (mere)