Pinker's Argument For Universality

If you really look into Pinker’s argument for the universality of an ethical or moral sense in humans, it tells a lot about people as a whole. We can look into moral goodness and what is done to people who disrespect morality. Morality is a way of thinking. It said in the article, “Moralization is a psychological state that can be turned on and off like a switch, and when it is on, a distinctive mind-set commandeers our thinking.” I do believe that we are programmed to think a certain way, because we are trained to think like that at a very young age. We are taught at a very young age that immoral acts deserve to be punished, because if we do not we are allowing people to do something “bad” or “wrong” without being punished. Punishment allows people to be penalized for this type of behavior. Bertrand Russel even wrote, “The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists-that is why they invented hell.” If someone is cruel
The ranking of the moral sphere shows how each culture varies depending on what they believe is the most important to them. In the article it stated, “In large Web survey, Haidt found that liberal put a lopsided moral weight on harm and fairness while playing down group loyalty, authority and purity. Conservatives instead play a moderately high weight on all five. Some people view things with a more ethical values with a higher importance. It shows that it varies from place to place. In the article it stated, “The starting point for appreciating that there is a distinctive part of our psychology for morality is seeing how moral judgments differ from other kinds of opinion we have on how people ought to behave.” Different culture judge behavior different. The distinction of right from wrong varies tremendously. Even how I could morally view something could vary from the people around me, because we have a different perspective of things that are morally acceptable from