The author describes Nine Timeless Human Dignity Needs as reason, security, human rights, accountability, transparency, justice, opportunity, innovation, and inclusiveness, and opposes them 'human nature', as characterized by emotionality, amorality, and egoism, "traits that, if left unchecked, can undermine trust, cooperation, and institutional legitimacy." As he explains in this paper (14 page PDF), " the findings indicating that we do not have an innate morality, and the compelling case for our actions being ultimately motivated by our own perceived self-interest." I'm generally sceptical of arguments based on accounts of human nature because it begs the question, what is 'natural' for a human? If we fear a tiger, is this 'natural' or 'learned'? Is there a principled distinction to be drawn between 'emotion' and a 'moral sense'? Neuroscience doesn't answer these questions, because the distinction itself is blurred and confused.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
