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

 

A Linguistic Analogy

previously: a hypothesis about the Affect Heuristic

now: a radically opposed hypothesis

moral intuitions

‘the central phenomena are moral emotions and intuitions.’

(Haidt, 2008, p. 65)

Q2 What do humans compute that enables them to track moral attributes?

Q1 How, if at all, do emotions influence moral intutions?

linguistic intuitions

Some philosophers have invited us to compare ethical inutitions with linguistic inutitions.
As fast as you can, which of the following two sentences is grammatical.

Which is a sentence?

[1] He is a waffling fatberg of lies.

[2]* A waffling fatberg lies of he is.

moral intuitions

‘the central phenomena are moral emotions and intuitions.’

(Haidt, 2008, p. 65)

Q2 What do humans compute that enables them to track moral attributes?

Q1 How, if at all, do emotions influence moral intutions?

linguistic intuitions

‘the central phenomena are moral emotions and intuitions.’

(Haidt, 2008, p. 65)

Q2 What do humans compute that enables them to track linguistic attributes?

Standard Answer: the linguistic attributes themselves, irrespective of whether they can articulate truths about them.

How could linguistic intutions involve computing linguistic attributes if we are entirely unable to articulate even basic facts about them—and are even often wrong about them?

moral intuition

‘the mind contains a moral grammar: a complex and possibly domain-specific set of rules [...] this system enables individuals to determine the deontic status of an infinite variety of acts and omissions’

(Mikhail, 2007, p. 144)

Researchers who consider various analogies between linguistic and ethical abilities include Roedder & Harman (2010), Mikhail (2007), and Dwyer (2009).

linguistic intuition

linguistic competence involves a special-purpose module

which operates according to linguistic rules

What is a module? This is actually a huge topic in its own right. We might come back to it. For now, see handout.
First idea: there is a moral grammar
Second idea: the moral grammar is in the mind, as a module (not as a body of knowledge)

Note: a the linguistic analogy

There are many possible points of analogy. (See Roedder & Harman (2010) for a discussion.) Here we are making just one: the idea that there is a distinctive, special-purpose and modular capacity
What evidence might bear on this question.

What evidence might indicate that humans have a language ethics module?

dumbfounding (Dwyer, 2009)

resistance to revisability

structure implicit in moral intuitions (Mikhail, 2014)

Mikhail’s theoretical argument (reconstruction)

Do humans have a language ethics module?

1. ‘adequately specifying the kinds of harm that humans intuitively grasp requires a technical legal vocabulary’

Compare: ‘ concepts like battery, end, means and side effect [...] can [...] predict human moral intuitions in a huge number and variety of cases’ (Mikhail, 2007, p. 149).

Therefore:

2. The abilities underpinning unreflective ethical judgements must involve analysis in accordance with rules.

Mikhail, 2007

For now we are setting this idea up in opposition with the emotions idea. But actually they are not in opposition at all. Compare nonmoral disgust: it too can be based on a complex analysis of a situation.

Trolley

A runaway trolley is about to run over and kill five people. You can hit a switch that will divert the trolley onto a different set of tracks where it will kill only one.

Is it okay to hit the switch?

Trolley

\emph{Trolley}

A runaway trolley is about to run over and kill five people. You can hit a switch that will divert the trolley onto a different set of tracks where it will kill only one.

Is it okay to hit the switch?

Transplant

\emph{Transplant}

Five people are going to die but you can save them all by cutting up one healthy person and distributing her organs.

Is it ok to cut her up?

Why do people respond differently?

Mikhail, 2007; 2014: because one involves purposive battery

But crucially this depends on analysing the structure ...

Mikhail, 2007 figure 1d (part)

(read this from bottom to top)
‘the Transplant and Trolley findings can be partly explained in terms of the distinction between battery as a means and battery as a side effect’ (Mikhail, 2007)

Mikhail, 2007 figure 1d

Mikhail, 2014 table 2

Mikhail extends his analysis to many further cases where philosophers or cognitive scientists have identifed an apparently inexplicable contrast.

Mikhail’s theses:

The contrasts make sense from a legal point of view,
so there is no need to suppose incompatible ethical principles are applied.

Our intuitions conform to legal distinctions (purposive battery).

Mikhail’s theoretical argument (reconstruction)

Do humans have a language ethics module?

1. ‘adequately specifying the kinds of harm that humans intuitively grasp requires a technical legal vocabulary’

Compare: ‘ concepts like battery, end, means and side effect [...] can [...] predict human moral intuitions in a huge number and variety of cases’ (Mikhail, 2007, p. 149).

Therefore:

2. The abilities underpinning unreflective ethical judgements must involve analysis in accordance with rules.

Mikhail, 2007

So that was an argument for premise 1.
So this was one argument for the claim ...
The important thing for me isn’t whether you find the argument compelling or not. There’s surely much more to say. It’s that the motivating for it gives us a good question, a puzzle even.
Of course it’s important to know that this puzzle is considered an argument for Mikhail’s Linguistic Analogy. For one answer to the puzzle is that we have a moral module.

puzzle

Why do patterns in humans’ moral intutions reflect legal principles they are unaware of?

What evidence might bear on this question.

What evidence might indicate that humans have a language ethics module?

dumbfounding

resistance to revisability

structure implicit in moral intuitions

language

linguistic competence involves a special-purpose module

which operates according to linguistic rules

ethics

‘the mind contains a moral grammar: a complex and possibly domain-specific set of rules [...] this system enables individuals to determine the deontic status of an infinite variety of acts and omissions’

Mikhail, 2007 p. 144

(Mikhail, 2007, p. 144)

Affect Heuristic

Linguistic Analogy

Q2 What do humans compute that enables them to track moral attributes?

their felt responses to situations

moral attributes themselves

Q1 How, if at all, do emotions influence moral intutions?

Moral intuitions are entirely determined by emotions.

Emotions do not influence moral intuitions at all.

So we have two major theories now.
Which give different answers to ...
... both questions.
Importantly, we also have good but not entirely convincing arguments for both theories.