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

 

Moral Disengagement: The Theory

 

Moral Disengagement: The Theory

[email protected]

humans over the course of development adopt standards of right and wrong that they judge their own actions in the light of those standards and that they apply sanctions to themselves when their actions fail to live up to those standards and perhaps reward themselves when they do

self-regulation

adopt standards

judge own actions

apply sanctions

Moral conduct is motivated and regulated through the ongoing exercise of evaluative self-influence,

which can sometimes prevent you getting things you want.

(Bandura, 2002, p. 102).

so this is bandora's key idea he thinks that ethical reasoning and action is bound up in a process of self-regulation moral conduct according to him is motivated and regulated through the ongoing exercise of evaluative self-influence
so if we were to put this very crudely we might say something like this typically if you do something which is by your own lights wrong you're likely to feel bad the more wrong you think the action is the worse you're likely to feel doesn't always work that way but quite often and if you've ever done anything pretty terrible right i know i have um you'll know that you can as a consequence of that spend quite a long time punishing yourself afterwards and quite harshly so when we talk about bad feelings that appears to be playing it down but those of us who have done terrible things in the past will know that that bad feeling right can actually be pretty pretty severe it can be pretty crippling the sanctions are actually more serious than that suggests but here's the thing the fact that we apply these self-sanctions that we influence our own behavior can sometimes prevent us from getting things that we want
and of course in in a way that's that's the whole point isn't it you know there are things that you want but getting those things would involve inflicting harm on other people um and the process of self-regulation ensures that there is at least kind of balance between you getting what you want and you harming other people right so it seems like a a reasonable mechanism so the theory
anyway this is the theory so then there's a question right what happens in this situation there's something that you want and you do decide to get it and then um you apply self-regulation you can kind of anticipate that something bad is going to happen to you
e.g. Take a train instead of self-isolating after you have received a positive test for the Covid.
Mention Camus’ Stranger?

Imagine you are tempted to do something that is, by your own standards, wrong.

It’s obvious—or should be—that doing this will put others’ lives at risk.

You anticipate feeling bad (self-inflicted sanctions) if you surrender to temptation.

But you decide to give in to the temptation and do it.

What do you tell yourself?

Examples of moral disengagement

Everyone else is doing it

Last time even the PM didn’t stick to the rules so why should I

The rules are stupid

It’s only a mild illness for most people

I’m unlikely to infect anyone

People who get it were likely to die anyway.

Note the role of reason.

Reason plays a role in most, if not all, of these processes. It is central to Moral Justification, Displacement of Responsibility and Attribution of Blame. So if moral disengagement is responsible for a moral judgement or action, it is likely that reasoning will have played a causal role in arriving at the judgement or action.

Bandura (2002, p. figure 1)

aside: moral disengagement and moral intutions

in some cases, moral disengagement works via justification (e.g. kids deserve it), so should not influence moral intutions directly
but in other cases (eg. dehumanization), it does not involve justification but rather changing the way you expereince events, so it will change which intuitions an event triggers but only indirectly.

Intuitions are claims you accept take to be true independently of whether they are justified inferentially.

Acquiring a moral intuition can be triggered by a situation.

Reasoning from known principles cannot directly influence moral intuitions.

Reasoning from known principles can

modify how events are interpreted,

which aspects are attended to,

and how things and actions are categorised (e.g. dehumanization),

and so indirectly influence moral intuitions.

Note the role of reason.

Distinguish ways in which reason influences moral judgement directly (e.g. via moral justification, Displacement of Responsibility of Attribution of Blame) from ways in which reason influences moral intuition (and thus judgement) indirectly (e.g. dehumanization)

Bandura (2002, p. figure 1)

Why is the role of reason significant?

minor

driven by feelings -> unreliable

driven by reasoning -> reliable

Moral judgements are not always entirely consequences of feelings.

Some moral judgements are, at least in part, consequences of reasoning from known principles.

moral dumbfounding

sometimes, not always:

intuition

-> judgement

-> reasoning

moral disengagement

sometimes:

(intuition

->) reasoning

-> judgement

But why accept the theory?

Note the contrast with philosophy, where it often seems enough to have a good story. (I’ve nothing against storytelling. It’s proven incredibly useful. But you can’t do moral psychology merely by telling stories.)