sentiments, sources, character

This is a lucid work of social science that actually illuminates such topics as gender differences, family dynamics, the origins of our moral sentiments, and why the human animal is the way he or she is. The author argues that the daily discourse of ordinary people is permeated with moral references and that these concerns derive from a moral nature that is part of our humanity. We are born neither wicked nor good Wilson argues. Rather we are born to be social, and this is what gives decency a fighting chance.

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). ( )

I had hoped this book would either be 1) a formidable response to situationalist ethical perspectives, or 2) kind of a light-reading G.E. Moore, or 3) something altogether new and exciting. It was anything but these. Wilson's moral/psychological survey bears all the lesser qualities of early enlightenment ethical theories. It is frustratingly narrowminded in its assumptions about what is universal in human thought and experience, overly self-assured and under-critical, and too quick to assert that such and such must be the case after striking down the other option in some shortsighted false dichotomy. Yet, being altogether conservative, it bears few insights not more vividly present in those limited works of enlightenment rationalism. Wilson's only seems to me to respond to his opponents' positions adequately if one only listens to superficial interpretations of those ethical systems. Reading this book taught me little, and meaningfully altered my concept of ethics--and therefore behavior--even less. I was really disappointed by the lack of rigor, cogency, and ingenuity. The book is not awful, but a work of comparable magnitude could have been written by just about any armchair philosopher with a yen to write down his thoughts--and I wonder if it might have then been more brief and more interesting. ( )

Hunted this down at Powell's, for a group read in the Pro and Con group. Would not have bought this one if I had submitted it to my usual 50-page test. I am finding it incredibly tedious and boring, and am struggling to finish it.