What do you think?
Rate this book
The Moral Sense
The classic and controversial argument that morality is based in human nature.
336 pages, Paperback
First published June 18, 2008
About the author
James Q. Wilson
208 books43 followersJames Q. Wilson was one of the leading contemporary criminologists in the United States. Wilson, who has taught at several major universities during his academic career, has also written on economics and politics during his lengthy career. During the 1960s and 1970s, Wilson voiced concerns about trying to address the social causes of crime. He argued instead that public policy is most effective when it focuses on objective matters like the costs and benefits of crime. Wilson views criminals as rational human beings who will not commit crimes when the costs associated with crime become impractical.
James Q. Wilson most recently taught at Boston College and Pepperdine University. He was Professor Emeritus of Management and Public Administration at UCLA and was previously Shattuck Professor of Government at Harvard University. He wrote more than a dozen books on the subjects of public policy, bureaucracy, and political philosophy. He was president of the American Political Science Association, and he is the only political scientist to win three of the four lifetime achievement awards presented by the APSA. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, in 2003.
Professor Wilson passed away in March of 2012 after battling cancer. His work helped shape the field of political science in the United States. His many years of service to his American Government book remain evident on every page and will continue for many editions to come.
James Q. Wilson most recently taught at Boston College and Pepperdine University. He was Professor Emeritus of Management and Public Administration at UCLA and was previously Shattuck Professor of Government at Harvard University. He wrote more than a dozen books on the subjects of public policy, bureaucracy, and political philosophy. He was president of the American Political Science Association, and he is the only political scientist to win three of the four lifetime achievement awards presented by the APSA. He received the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian award, in 2003.
Professor Wilson passed away in March of 2012 after battling cancer. His work helped shape the field of political science in the United States. His many years of service to his American Government book remain evident on every page and will continue for many editions to come.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
August 20, 2011
I normally wouldn't give a book that is this slow such a high rating. Some of the chapters are longer than they need to be. Despite that, Wilson's argument is so interesting that it is worth struggling through some rather difficult writing to try to understand it.
Wilson is making a very conservative argument that argues that everyone is born with an innate moral sense, but that the family is key to socializing children to express that basic human nature. He uses extensive reference materials to back up his argument. In the end, I wasn't convinced that his thesis was correct, but he made me consider possibilities and arguments that I had not contemplated in the past. Some of his arguments about women were clearly sexist, and he didn't back it up in a way that made it seem like anything more than anti-feminist rhetoric. Overall, however, some of what he said did make sense. The book made me think, which a decent philosophical essay ought to do.
If you are willing to read a book you might not agree with, and you are interested in philosophy/morality, this book is worth the effort.
Wilson is making a very conservative argument that argues that everyone is born with an innate moral sense, but that the family is key to socializing children to express that basic human nature. He uses extensive reference materials to back up his argument. In the end, I wasn't convinced that his thesis was correct, but he made me consider possibilities and arguments that I had not contemplated in the past. Some of his arguments about women were clearly sexist, and he didn't back it up in a way that made it seem like anything more than anti-feminist rhetoric. Overall, however, some of what he said did make sense. The book made me think, which a decent philosophical essay ought to do.
If you are willing to read a book you might not agree with, and you are interested in philosophy/morality, this book is worth the effort.
December 30, 2012
I first heard of Dr. Wilson after recently reading glowing obituaries in many respected publications. His teaching and publications have been influential to many better known authorities. As I am a psychiatrist working with emotionally disturbed adolescents, I felt I should know his work better. I have not been disappointed. Dr. Wilson's thesis is that development of a moral sense is an inherently human characteristic. This stance contradicts many popular views, including that of moral relativism, which seems to hold sway in academia. Dr.Wilson is a synthetic and creative thinker. He plays fair. Rather than falling back on polemics, he advances his argument by articles across a number of scholarly disciplines, including material which might counter his stance.
Some of the material is inherently dry, but his prose is lucid and his logic elegant, and he held my interest throughout. The Moral Sense has added greatly to my knowledge and is bound to have a significant impact on my work.
Some of the material is inherently dry, but his prose is lucid and his logic elegant, and he held my interest throughout. The Moral Sense has added greatly to my knowledge and is bound to have a significant impact on my work.
July 19, 2014
It seems strange to me that anyone would doubt the existence of a moral sense. Do these doubters not have a moral sense? If they do have a moral sense then how can they doubt the existence of something they themselves have? If you do not have a moral sense yourself then this book gives objective evidence from the fields of child psychology and anthropology that most humans do in fact have a moral sense.
April 1, 2022
This is an amazing book, and at the time of writing this review, it’s free with an Audible membership. James Wilson’s book starts out with rising crime rates around the world and explains how it’s not just limited to the United States. He’s not concerned with why crime rates are rising, but he looks to explain why we’re not all running around like crime-committing lunatics. I absolutely loved how he starts this book with the introduction and first couple chapters just challenging a lot of the popular explanations of morality, altruism and cooperation. I’ve read dozens of books on this topic, and he really got me thinking about some of these concepts.
The book goes on to explain a lot of evolutionary and moral psychology as well as a bit of philosophy (not much). It’s definitely worth the read if you’re interested in human nature and morality. There were a couple of chapters toward the end that kind of bored me, but other than that, it was phenomenal, and I definitely recommend it.
The book goes on to explain a lot of evolutionary and moral psychology as well as a bit of philosophy (not much). It’s definitely worth the read if you’re interested in human nature and morality. There were a couple of chapters toward the end that kind of bored me, but other than that, it was phenomenal, and I definitely recommend it.
September 10, 2019
Excellent riff on Adam Smith’s Theory of Moral Sentiments. I particularly enjoyed the contemporary contexts for examinations of sympathy, duty, self-control and fairness. My AP Seminar class has chosen to apply Wilson’s analysis to recent debates about the double-edged promise of social media ( see Brad Smith’s Tools and Weapons). Sympathy as standard online is unfortunately too rare. Wilson’s thoughts on fairness and duty in the absence of sympathy could lead us forward in a new online social contract.
May 4, 2024
"Didn't your momma teach you better?"
Well was she a single parent war-monger, neo-colonialist, boomer, cannibal, elitist from the east side, when you live amongst the like, except hicks from the south side????
Nurture clashes with nature as folk judge you using the wrong dinner fork at the wedding... Maverick or plebian??? Either way, this bridesmaid who got her dress uniquely altered with sexy cutouts is now in my crosshairs ("stamped"; definitely no panties; fit... she get's it from her mama)...
Interesting stuff, though more of an overview one can use as basis toward more depth.
Well was she a single parent war-monger, neo-colonialist, boomer, cannibal, elitist from the east side, when you live amongst the like, except hicks from the south side????
Nurture clashes with nature as folk judge you using the wrong dinner fork at the wedding... Maverick or plebian??? Either way, this bridesmaid who got her dress uniquely altered with sexy cutouts is now in my crosshairs ("stamped"; definitely no panties; fit... she get's it from her mama)...
Interesting stuff, though more of an overview one can use as basis toward more depth.
October 5, 2022
Similar to Haidt’s Righteous Mind, but better.
November 2, 2017
The theme of the book is that there are universal moral senses among human. Therefore, the notion that everything depends on the culture (culture relativism) is wrong.
The book argues this point by looking at some basic components of moral, such as sympathy, fairness, self-control and duty. The author argued from several points that these virtues are universal and “natural” to all human beings.
• People are born with them (infants display such qualities)
• People feel compelled to justify actions against these qualities.
• These qualities show up across the culture boundaries.
The author then look at more complicated social behaviors such kinship and groupness, families (devotions to spouses and children), gender-specific behavior patterns, and some universal values. The author pointed out that although these behaviors differ among different cultures, societies and historical periods, there are still universal commonalities.
The author concludes his argument by distinguishing basic moral senses and social norms. He states that although we share the same moral senses, they manifest into different social norms depending on culture and historical contexts. So while we should recognize cultural differences, it does not mean we choose our social norms arbitrarily, or we cannot judge somebody’s behavior with some universal standard.
The book has some logical analyses based on voluminous research and facts from literature. It also analyzed moral theories in the Western thinking. What I like about this book is the fact that the author does not have a rigid presumption. Instead, he adopts his conclusions based on evidence. His statements are stronger in some places and weaker in others. It is very enjoyable to read because of the agreeable tone. On the other hand, the book does not have a clear thread leading to a clear conclusion. It sometimes feel like a compilation of relevant facts, without a logical direction. So patients are called for when reading it. Do not try to reduce it to bullet points or a line of argument. Instead, enjoy the rational discourse and contemplate the basic question yourself: is there a universal moral standard?
The book argues this point by looking at some basic components of moral, such as sympathy, fairness, self-control and duty. The author argued from several points that these virtues are universal and “natural” to all human beings.
• People are born with them (infants display such qualities)
• People feel compelled to justify actions against these qualities.
• These qualities show up across the culture boundaries.
The author then look at more complicated social behaviors such kinship and groupness, families (devotions to spouses and children), gender-specific behavior patterns, and some universal values. The author pointed out that although these behaviors differ among different cultures, societies and historical periods, there are still universal commonalities.
The author concludes his argument by distinguishing basic moral senses and social norms. He states that although we share the same moral senses, they manifest into different social norms depending on culture and historical contexts. So while we should recognize cultural differences, it does not mean we choose our social norms arbitrarily, or we cannot judge somebody’s behavior with some universal standard.
The book has some logical analyses based on voluminous research and facts from literature. It also analyzed moral theories in the Western thinking. What I like about this book is the fact that the author does not have a rigid presumption. Instead, he adopts his conclusions based on evidence. His statements are stronger in some places and weaker in others. It is very enjoyable to read because of the agreeable tone. On the other hand, the book does not have a clear thread leading to a clear conclusion. It sometimes feel like a compilation of relevant facts, without a logical direction. So patients are called for when reading it. Do not try to reduce it to bullet points or a line of argument. Instead, enjoy the rational discourse and contemplate the basic question yourself: is there a universal moral standard?
December 9, 2023
A well reasoned cautious book with a thesis that went against the intellectual grain but really shouldn’t. The moral sense is actually multiple senses: sympathy, fairness, self-control, and duty that encompass what various philosophers from Aristotle to Adam Smith counted as virtues. However modern liberal societies emphasize care and fairness which are more feminine above self-control and duty which are more masculine since the former are more universal and less a demand on the individual but the latter are necessary for virtues such as prudence, fortitude, temperance, and loyalty. Such universalist moral principles in the West (defined here as contemporary northwest Europe and its progeny) themselves owe to a long complex social development involving family structure and religion that resulted in the nuclear family model and widespread property ownership.
These moral senses derive from our social and familial nature rooted in our mammalian ancestry and the distinct but complementary roles of the sexes. Those chapters employ Darwinian reasoning as a counter to behaviorist and psychoanalytic psychology that rely on simple instincts and socialization, however attachment theory and much of evolutionary psychology do owe their development to these theories.
Wilson’s conclusion is not that the moral sense gives a straightforward account of right and wrong but that these sentiments make morality possible, a descriptive not prescriptive account. Moral sentiments are not the same as altruism, as they are self-serving in the psychological and evolutionary senses. These sentiments are often at odds with each other and weaker with distance from those like ourselves which make social structures more important to explain cultural differences. The well known examples of immoral behavior attest to the existence of accepted norms. The anti-social aspects of human nature as seen in politics and economics arise from the conflict or lack of social structures. This would also mean that criminality arises from delinquency from established norms by those within or on the margin of society, whether by ineffectiveness or inability to follow norms.
These moral senses derive from our social and familial nature rooted in our mammalian ancestry and the distinct but complementary roles of the sexes. Those chapters employ Darwinian reasoning as a counter to behaviorist and psychoanalytic psychology that rely on simple instincts and socialization, however attachment theory and much of evolutionary psychology do owe their development to these theories.
Wilson’s conclusion is not that the moral sense gives a straightforward account of right and wrong but that these sentiments make morality possible, a descriptive not prescriptive account. Moral sentiments are not the same as altruism, as they are self-serving in the psychological and evolutionary senses. These sentiments are often at odds with each other and weaker with distance from those like ourselves which make social structures more important to explain cultural differences. The well known examples of immoral behavior attest to the existence of accepted norms. The anti-social aspects of human nature as seen in politics and economics arise from the conflict or lack of social structures. This would also mean that criminality arises from delinquency from established norms by those within or on the margin of society, whether by ineffectiveness or inability to follow norms.
June 10, 2013
This is supposed to be Wilson's masterpiece, and it does seem well written. But it starts out by opposing science and reason on the one hand, and morality and religion on the other. This is, as far as I’m concerned, a false dichotomy. Wilson felt that using the word “values” would let people talk about morality, but "values" is a word that means very little. Wilson also felt that we have an intuitive idea of what we’re obligated to do, which is our “moral sense.” But this ignores the many situations where values are opposed to each other, when we have to choose between, say, loyalty to our family and our obligations as public servants.
Wilson was a conservative who believed that the 60s undermined values, and this smug, presumptuous attitude made the book distasteful to me.
Wilson was a conservative who believed that the 60s undermined values, and this smug, presumptuous attitude made the book distasteful to me.
October 20, 2011
I can't remember what I was reading that suggested I read this book, but I'm glad I did. It took me a while to get through it, but I think the examples and points made are very clear and in some ways scary. Reading this also made me want to get back to "The De-moralization of Society" by Gertrude Himmelfarb. I know that society at large does not agree upon what is moral and what behaviors should be encouraged or banned, but I honestly think that one of our big problems is that we are not willing, or perhaps not able, to have discussions and find places where there is common ground or head on acknowledge places there is not agreement, and discuss potential implications/outcomes.
April 11, 2020
This book took me forever... not because it was terrible, but because it's impossible to skim and I kept having to reread sections when I picked it up every other day(reading with a newborn who won't nap is hard!).
Wilson makes some solid points, both scientifically and philosophically. We're not talking religion here-- simply nature vs nurture. I learned a lot about nature but also relearned much of what I knew about Kant, Rousseau, Hume, Locke, Aristotle, etc. I suppose that's why I liked it.
I specifically committed to pick up Adam Smith at least once in my life(Humanities excerpts notwithstanding).
Wilson makes some solid points, both scientifically and philosophically. We're not talking religion here-- simply nature vs nurture. I learned a lot about nature but also relearned much of what I knew about Kant, Rousseau, Hume, Locke, Aristotle, etc. I suppose that's why I liked it.
I specifically committed to pick up Adam Smith at least once in my life(Humanities excerpts notwithstanding).
December 19, 2016
DNF - I got about 200 pages through this book and it was just so out of touch with the way the world is now. I had expected this to be more of a substantive self help book, but that never really came together. The first half was interesting, but it was just a collection of ideas. There was never any resonance to the concepts and as the book went on, it became more and more of a chore to read.
April 4, 2008
It is a great book to ponder to what extent morality is socially constructed or an inherent quality in human beings. Wilson challenges much of the moral relativism that continues to permeate social constructivist thought.
November 29, 2015
Very interesting to skim and also to slow down on some sections (according to what interests you as a reader). It's a bit dense at points but full of good sense, extensive examples, and thought-provoking analyses.
October 24, 2014
Most intriguing argument made by this author is how all the social institutions were created to essentially control the destructive nature of male aggression.
Shelved as 'on-the-back-burner'
April 25, 2012Just couldn't get my mind to focus on the droll information.
April 10, 2013
Meh. Required text fo my course.
October 24, 2020
Others have complained that the approach James Q. Wilson takes in The Moral Sense is presumptuous and shallow. I don't know what book they read. I found Wilson refreshingly self-deprecating and extremely mindful of avoiding excessive claims. Throughout the book he admits caveats and weaknesses to his central hypothesis, while steadily accumulating evidence from multiple lines to support its truth.
That hypothesis is that while they are certainly and strongly affected by nurture, science and common experience indicate that human beings do have a common nature, from which arises common moral sentiments—sympathy, fairness, self-control, and duty. After marshaling a raft of sociological and psychological studies in support of that hypothesis, he moves on to its implications in society and, to some degree, policy. I found his arguments persuasive, but that may be due to the fact that I'd come to the same general conclusion many years ago, long before I read his book. Indeed, I was continually surprised while reading The Moral Sense just how much it seemed as if Wilson was attempting to explain and draw out my own view. So I understand if someone else, coming from a different, especially contrary view, sees my agreement as so much confirmation bias.
I admit the possibility, but I don't believe that should dissuade others from approaching his argument with as open a mind as possible. After all, human beings do have a nature, and I don't think it's too much a stretch to suggest that that nature might, after millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of social adaptation, encompasses some judgements of behavior, both our own and that of others, that operate on us below the level of culture, sex, skin color, and personal experience. but are obviously affected by all four. To the degree that's the case, taking that nature, and those sentiments, into account when considering our laws and decrees would seem only to make sense. The framers of the American constitution certainly attempted to do so, based in their case on their review of how well certain governments and states had succeeded over time.
Whether the reader agrees with Wilson's conclusions about that or not, I do think he makes a serious and solicitous enough case that it can least prove an excellent clarifier for one's own views on the matter. That, to me, is as good a reason to read a book as any.
That hypothesis is that while they are certainly and strongly affected by nurture, science and common experience indicate that human beings do have a common nature, from which arises common moral sentiments—sympathy, fairness, self-control, and duty. After marshaling a raft of sociological and psychological studies in support of that hypothesis, he moves on to its implications in society and, to some degree, policy. I found his arguments persuasive, but that may be due to the fact that I'd come to the same general conclusion many years ago, long before I read his book. Indeed, I was continually surprised while reading The Moral Sense just how much it seemed as if Wilson was attempting to explain and draw out my own view. So I understand if someone else, coming from a different, especially contrary view, sees my agreement as so much confirmation bias.
I admit the possibility, but I don't believe that should dissuade others from approaching his argument with as open a mind as possible. After all, human beings do have a nature, and I don't think it's too much a stretch to suggest that that nature might, after millions of years of evolution and thousands of years of social adaptation, encompasses some judgements of behavior, both our own and that of others, that operate on us below the level of culture, sex, skin color, and personal experience. but are obviously affected by all four. To the degree that's the case, taking that nature, and those sentiments, into account when considering our laws and decrees would seem only to make sense. The framers of the American constitution certainly attempted to do so, based in their case on their review of how well certain governments and states had succeeded over time.
Whether the reader agrees with Wilson's conclusions about that or not, I do think he makes a serious and solicitous enough case that it can least prove an excellent clarifier for one's own views on the matter. That, to me, is as good a reason to read a book as any.
February 13, 2020
Wilson's thought process is always an interesting read, but unlike Bureaucracy which applied his critical mind to the specific nature of government organizations, The Moral Sense tries to cast a wide glance over all of human behavior. Unfortunately, the end result is unfocused and inconsistent. He tends to argue that humans are inevitably the same, guided by a common moral sense, but will then catalog all of the moral failings of society today based on some changed variable (divorce, incarceration, etc.) He is wedded to the idea of nature, but goes to great lengths about the importance of nurture. In the end, he produces plenty of interesting anecdotes and cites a few psych studies, but he also leans heavily on "what we tend to do" with little academic rigor to backup some of his claims.
July 1, 2020
“Mankind’s moral sense is not a strong beacon light, radiating outward to illuminate in sharp outline all that it touches. It is, rather, a small candle flame, casting vague and multiple shadows, flickering and sputtering in the strong winds of power and passion, greed and ideology. But brought close to the heart and cupped in one’s hands, it dispels the darkness and warms the soul.”
March 2, 2017
Wilson, controversially, delves into whether morality is absolute, or only relative depending on the time and place. He sides with the former, explaining how qualities like sympathy, fairness, self-control, duty, modesty, courage and integrity are constants.
October 23, 2021
Excellent treatment of the topic of the origin of our moral sense, weaving psychology, brain science and philosophy together. We documented.
July 15, 2015
I was surprised to find some attempt by the author to present his findings with honesty, and in many places information given caught my full attention. At one point in the book, he credits northern European/western civilization as being superior to any in history, and not a little but far superior coming right to the door Jesus Christ, but then abruptly walking away still lost and hell-bound.
Here though I must say that the whole premise of his 'thesis' is based on falsehood. The greatest of contradictions perhaps. That being the belief that man has been produced by evolution, and yet the whole work is on the morality of that man in many societies through many ages.
Morality. Is it measurable? Or a conscience which denies or affirms the morality of an act? Being animals according to devilish theory of evolution, is morality a reality or a creation of the mind, the imagination?
The premise (proven by the way) that there is a Supreme and Holy God being the Creator, and man created in His image is the only conclusion of logic, nature, and law possible. Otherwise it is unworkable and unprovable.
Holy is the Lord God and that His holiness is pure morals.
Here though I must say that the whole premise of his 'thesis' is based on falsehood. The greatest of contradictions perhaps. That being the belief that man has been produced by evolution, and yet the whole work is on the morality of that man in many societies through many ages.
Morality. Is it measurable? Or a conscience which denies or affirms the morality of an act? Being animals according to devilish theory of evolution, is morality a reality or a creation of the mind, the imagination?
The premise (proven by the way) that there is a Supreme and Holy God being the Creator, and man created in His image is the only conclusion of logic, nature, and law possible. Otherwise it is unworkable and unprovable.
Holy is the Lord God and that His holiness is pure morals.
June 18, 2022
Mankind’s moral sense is not a strong beacon light, radiating outward to illuminate in sharp outline all that it touches. It is, rather, a small candle flame, casting vague and multiple shadows, flickering and sputtering in the strong winds of power and passion, greed and ideology. But brought close to the heart and cupped in one’s hands, it dispels the darkness and warms the soul.
James Q Wilson
James Q Wilson
October 26, 2015
I like everything Sam Harris writes. This book, although a bit on the intellectual side, was a very interesting, thought provoking, and thought revision read. His vocabulary overwhelmed mine and I spent a lot of time looking up words. But I like that. If you want to get a very interesting perspective Morals and Morality - read this.
September 14, 2021
Confirms J.H.Breasted's work on ancient Egypt. Guess what, morality does not come from Christianity. See Greek philophy, see ancient Egypt.
September 25, 2014
I liked bureaucracy a lot better - this seemed to ephemeral a topic to tie down. But I read it as an audiobook so maybe I didn't give it enough attention
March 1, 2016
The neuroscience of morality was fascinating, the history of science less so. I enjoyed it thoroughly until it wore on me and I stopped.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews