Keyboard Shortcuts?f

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Linking Ethics to Moral Psychology: Dual-Process Theories

 

Lecture 07:

Moral Psychology

Structure of this course

Course Structure

 

Part 1: psychological underpinnings of ethical abilities

Part 2: political consequences

Part 3: implications for ethics

Could scientific discoveries undermine, or support,
ethical principles?

Phase 2

Identify general arguments against the use of intuitions in doing ethics.

Consider implications for Rawl’s method of
reflective equilibrium.

Phase 1

Find places where a particular philosopher’s ethical argument relies on an empirical claim, and where knowledge of this claim depends on scientific discoveries.

Can be supportive rather than debunking. However, practically speaking, it’s easier to show that knowledge of the claim depends on scientific discoveries when the science contradicts the ethicist’s claim. (Otherwise it’s hard to show that the ethicist knew the claim was true all along.)

✓

The key contrast is this: in Lecture 06, we were concerned with the use of empirical claims about moral psychology *within* ethical arguments. We considered attempts to show that moral psychology is relevant to ethics which rely on some philosophers’ approaches being broadly correct. In this lecture, our concern is with whether discoveries in moral psychology can undermine the case for accepting non-empirical premises of ethical arguments *from the outside*. We will consider attempts to show that moral psychology is relevant to ethics which rely on some philosophers’ approaches being substantially misguided.
Background: How do philosophers approach ethics? Rawls’ idea about reflective equilibrium captures a dominant strategy.
One standard in ethics: Rawls’ reflective equilibrium idea
‘one may think of moral theory at first [...] as the attempt to describe our moral capacity [...] what is required is a formulation of a set of principles which, when conjoined to our beliefs and knowledge of the circumstances, would lead us to make these judgments with their supporting reasons were we to apply these principles conscientiously and intelligently’ (Rawls, 1999, p. 41); see Singer (1974) for critical discussion.

‘one may think of physical moral theory at first [...]
as the attempt to describe our moralperceptual capacity

Interesting: seems like Rawls’ project requires the methods of psychology (and is moral psychology)

[...]

what is required is

a formulation of a set of principles which,

when conjoined to our beliefs and knowledge of the circumstances,

would lead us to make these judgments with their supporting reasons

were we to apply these principles’

(Rawls, 1999, p. 41)

The idea of moral theory as an attempt to describe our moral capacity is great. It looks like this will involve moral psychology. But actually Rawls has no such ambitions. He thinks that you can describe moral capacities by characterising the judgements people are inclined to make.
So my main point for now is just that one quite influential way of doing ethics leaves no room for discoveries about moral psychology.
But actually you can already see the outlines of an objection to reflective equilibrium:
Given multiple moral foundations, or multiple processes, we would not necessarily expect a single consistent set of principles. Neither within an individual; nor between individuals from different cultures.

Background: How do philosophers do ethics?

There are many approaches, but let’s look at one influential candidate.
This is the encyclopedia

‘Reflective equilibrium is the dominant method in moral and political philosophy’

(Knight, 2023)

‘this method, properly understood, is [...] the best way of making up one’s mind about moral matters [...]. Indeed, it is the only defensible method: apparent alternatives to it are illusory.’

(Scanlon, 2002, p. 149)

‘To most moral philosophers who reason about substantive moral issues, it seems that the method of reflective equilibrium, or a process very similar to it, is the best or most fruitful method of moral inquiry.

Of the known methods of inquiry, it is the one that seems most likely to lead to justified moral beliefs.

(McMahan, 2013, p. 111)

Could scientific discoveries undermine, or support,
ethical principles?

Phase 2

Identify general arguments against the use of intuitions in doing ethics.

Consider implications for Rawl’s method of
reflective equilibrium.

Phase 1

Find places where a particular philosopher’s ethical argument relies on an empirical claim, and where knowledge of this claim depends on scientific discoveries.

Can be supportive rather than debunking. However, practically speaking, it’s easier to show that knowledge of the claim depends on scientific discoveries when the science contradicts the ethicist’s claim. (Otherwise it’s hard to show that the ethicist knew the claim was true all along.)

✓

‘Science can advance ethics by revealing the hidden inner workings of our moral judgments, especially the ones we make intuitively. Once those inner workings are revealed we may have less confidence in some of [...] the ethical theories that are explicitly or implicitly based on them’

Greene (2014, pp. 695–6)

Aim is to understand and evaluate this claim.

Reflective equilibrium ‘is [...] the best way of making up one’s mind about moral matters [...]. Indeed, it is the only defensible method: apparent alternatives to it are illusory.’

(Scanlon, 2002, p. 149)

This is an exercise for later (the dilemma comes up in the dual-process experiment)

‘You are part of a group of ecologists who live in a remote stretch of jungle. The entire group, which includes eight children, has been taken hostage by a group of paramilitary terrorists. One of the terrorists takes a liking to you. He informs you that his leader intends to kill you and the rest of the hostages the following morning.

He is willing to help you and the children escape, but as an act of good faith he wants you to kill one of your fellow hostages whom he does not like. If you refuse his offer all the hostages including the children and yourself will die. If you accept his offer then the others will die in the morning but you and the eight children will escape.

‘Would you kill one of your fellow hostages in order to escape from the terrorists and save the lives of the eight children?’

(Koenigs et al., 2007)

Can I have an overview?