W8 morality

Question 1

morality

definition

Answer 1

= a code of values that guides choices and actions in our lives
=prescriptive judgements of justice, rights
= system of actions, thoughts behaviours as either right or wrong

distinctively human capacity for making moral judgements and engaging in moral behaviour
- its what makes us human and want to do things
- close to our understanding of the meaning of life

Question 2

trolley driver dilemma

+ footbridge

Answer 2

• trolly driver - 5ppl on track vs 1, is it morally permissibleto change track
• bystander at the switch -change it to divert trolley kill1 vs 5
• footbridge - push large man off bridge to stop the train

Question 2

spare assignment example

Answer 2

• kate is panicked, hasnt done the essay. you tell her you did it but have two versions no ones seen it.
• can she use it - is it morally permissible to for jenny to email kate the spare essay and use as her own?

Question 3

moral psychology

2 models

Answer 3

= broad interdisciplinary field that investigates theroetical questions of dilemmas
- how do we morally reason?
- is morality gut reaction?
- implications for all areas of life:
- how we decide what to eat, how we vote, protect environment etc

1. rationalism
2. intuitionalism/sentimentalism

Question 4

1 rationalism

based on reason

Answer 4

= all creatures with sufficient rationality should arrive at roughly same moral conclusion if presented with same non-moral facts

immanuel kant - wrongness of actions grounded in moral law of categorical imperative (shouldnt perform action unless everyone else do the same)

samuel clarke - there are obejctively true moral claims, like mathematical reality

Question 5

2 sentimentalism/intuitionism

Answer 5

= morality is a function of emotions, rational creatures with different emotions could have different moral views, provides reason to doubt that moral claims are objectively true

hutcheson and hume
- morality an emotioal sentiment of disapproval from a moral sense, generates automatic reactions

based on affective reactions

Question 6

morality as mathematics vs as aesthetics

Answer 6

maths = rationalist
1+2 =3
if i have 1 pie, then you give men 5 pies, how many pies?
but was it okay for me to steal the pies?

aesthetics = sentimentalist
- eg ugly couch vs nice couch

Question 7

fundamentals of a rationalist morality

+ deductive model

Answer 7

theoretical position of Kohlberg
- assumes that moral understandings, decisions, and actions are derived through process of conscious moral reasoning
- deductive in nature

premise 1 - moral principle eg. stealing is wrong
**premise 2 classification **- this is an act of stealing
premise 3- exceptions - ‘the circumstances are not extreme’ or jenny is saving her life with the essay’
conclusion - therefore, the act is morally wrong

Question 8

assumptions of the deductive model

Answer 8

1. deductive arguments make people justified in beliefing their conclusions
2. a belief in a principle causes the person to beleif in the moral conclusion
3. all the moral content should be contained in the universal premise/principle

Question 9

kohlberg’s theory of moral development

levels of morality

Answer 9

• a model of the staged development of increasingly ‘advanced moral reasoning’
• a model of how moral reasoning should ideally be conducted (stage 6)
• inspired by piaget’s stage theory

pre-conventional;
1. punishment and obedience.
2. individual interests and exchange
conventional
3 being good/interpersonal relationships
4 maintaining law and order
post-conventional
5. social contract and individual rights
6. 6. universal ethical principles

Question 10

Kolhberg truly rational moral agent stage 6,+ Rawls

U

Answer 10

universality = as defined by Kant, i should never perform an action unless i could rationally intent that everyone in similar situation do the same thing
- eg. park car outside lecture room = bad

reversibility = Rawls reversible conception of justice
- original position under a veil of ignorance. what course of action would you wish to occur if you didnt know whos shoes youd be in from the action/scenario

Question 11

Kohlberg’s ideal role taking
3 things

Answer 11

a. need to assess the claims being made by each group
- what moral principles is it based on?
- rights and duties
b.need to put ourselves in the shoes of all potential parties
- can u reasonably accept the claims in eyes of another
c. not about being a self-sacrificial saint - duty to be rational not ‘saintly

Question 12

spare essay example - ideal role-taking

Answer 12

• position of a student who overhears the conversation (right to do own work with credit, duty to only submit own work
• in kates place - has right to expect friend to help, and duty to help her

Question 13

rationalist account of role of emotions in morality

Answer 13

encounter act/situation –> moral judgement via reasoning
–> emotional response –> emotion motivates behaving in line with judgement

• we need only reason to recognise the moral law, but we may need emotion to care about the moral law

Question 14

schnall et al example

Answer 14

influence of induced embodied/affective markers of disgust moral judgments of bignettes
- present of fart spray odour
- work in a filthy room
- recall an event that made them ill
eg. vignette of plane crash, 3 survivers, no food, do you sacrifice them is this wrong?

–> harsher moral judgements after inducing disgust
–> why should a bad smell make us care about moral law more?…

Question 15

Intuitionist role of emotions in morality

Answer 15

• encounter act/situation –> emotional gut feeling response-
  —> moral judgement –> engage reasoning to explain our judgment to others

Question 16

moral dilemmas/situations, eventually we say…

is moral reasoning the cause or consequence of moral judgment?

+ example

Answer 16

its juSt WrOnG!!
- rationalist argues the cause is wrong
- intuitionist argues the consequence is wrong

• eg. woman doesnt want australian flag anymore, so cuts it up and uses it as a rag, is this morally wrong?, pariticpants in US/brazil say no harm caused, but its still wrong

Question 17

best predictors of moral judgement

2 of them

Answer 17

extent to which they said they would find it difficult to witness the acts
rather than their rational assessments of the harm caused by the acts

Question 18

Haidts definitions moral___

Answer 18

moral reasoning
moral judgement
moral intuition

Question 19

moral judgments

Answer 19

evaluations (good v bad) of the actions or character of a person that are made with respect to a set of virtues held to be obligatory by a culture/subculture

Question 20

moral reasoning

Answer 20

conscious mental activity that consists of transforming given information about ppl in order to reach moral judgment

Question 21

moral intuition

Answer 21

the sudden appearance in consciousness of a moral judgement
- includes affective valence (good-bad, like-dislike)
- without any conscious awareness of doing this

Question 22

SIM social intuitionist model

Answer 22

triggering event + four main links
- intuitive judgement
- post-hoc reasoning
- reasoned persuasion
- social persuasion

two rarely used links
- reasoned judgment
- private reflection

Question 23

SIM

intuitive judgement

Answer 23

moral judgements appear in conscious automatically and effortlessly
= the result of moral intuition

Question 24

# SIM 2 post-hoc reasoning

Answer 24

- moral reasoning is an effortful process engaged in **after** moral judgement - can be motivated reasoning to support judgement

Question 25

3. reasoned persuasive link

Answer 25

- moral reasoning used to verbally justify one's moral judgement to other people - can *sometimes* effect others, but quite rarely - works by triggering new emotional intuitions in the listener (not by providing compelling arguments)

Question 26

4 social persuasion link

Answer 26

- the effect of being aware of others judgment/norms - the mere existence of others moral judgements has direct influence on others, even without reasoned persuasion - can be outward conformity, but often privately held judgements | eg. ppl though it was moral, so I change 10% of class changed their mind

Question 27

5 reasoned judgement link

Answer 27

- sometimes people reason their way to a judgment by logic (overriding their intuition) - Haidt sees this as rare, initially weak intuition, high processing capacity

Question 28

6 private reflection link

Answer 28

- people may spontaneously activate a new intuition that contradicts their initial one when thinking about a situation - instantly feel sympathy or emotional response - principle pathway of moral reflection - see moral dilemma from many sides - use inner dialogue of reason to decide which intuition is correct

Question 29

Haidt's social intuitionist model | 4 reasons

Answer 29

- 4 reasons for doubting the causality of reasoning in moral judgement; 1. there are two cognitive processes occuring, and reasoning is overemphasied 2. reasoning is often motivated 3. the reasoning process constructs post-hoc justifications 4. moral action covaries with moral emotion more than moral reasoning

Question 30

its a descriptive theory or moral judgment not normative

Answer 30

- not suggesting *should* 'make moral judgments in this way' - the SIM helps understand the exact nature of this process, and ppl can avoid its pitfalls

Question 31

# pluralistic moral intuitions moral foundations theory (graham 2013) | 6 foundations

Answer 31

- care/harm= compassion, prevent suffering, aversion to cruelty - fairness/cheating = concerns about justice, recpirpocity - loyalty/betrayal = group cohesion, patriotism, distrust of traitors - authoirty/subversion = respect leadership/tradition, dislike rebellions - sanctity/degradation = purity, sacredness - liberty/oppression = reactance against bullies, defend autonomy | left wing first2,right=others, preducts attitudes

Question 32

cant we be both rational and intuitive? | DPT

Answer 32

Greene et al's Dual Process theory of moral judgement

Question 33

DPT greene et al

Answer 33

- **deontological** vs **consequential** bases for judgements Killing = wrong (deontological) vs ‘what saves more lives?’ (Consequential) - Judging what people do vs the consequences of their actions - **Footbridge** sets of emotional ‘alarm bell’ that ‘this is wrong’ that impersonal switch does not - **Brain regions** associated with social cognition are activated in Footbridge that sets of deontological reasoning and overrides consequentialist reasoning

Question 34

Greene DPT two systems

Answer 34

**Cool moral system** - deliberate, effortful - reasons about explicit cases from abstract principlees - *primary moral rule* = favours collective welfare maximisation - eg. killing wrong **hot moral system** - rapid, automatic - generates affective responses to specific cases - uses processes inaccessible to conscious reflection - *primary moral rule* = prohibits using harm as a means to greater good