Main.CogsciMoralIntuition History
Hide minor edits - Show changes to output
Added line 19:
* [[Main/Cognitive Biases]]
Changed lines 7-8 from:
to:
* [recommended] Machery Edouard. The Bleak Implications of Moral Psychology. See [[http://experimentalphilosophy.typepad.com/experimental_philosophy/2008/07/the-bleak-impli.html|here]].
Added lines 23-24:
Also - J.M. Darley and C.D. Batson (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. ''Journal of Personality and Social Psychology'' 27, pp. 100–119.
Changed line 39 from:
to:
# Science evaluates empirical presuppositions of moral theories
Changed lines 41-42 from:
** If a moral theory implies something that is empirically false or not feasible, this is problematic.
to:
** If a moral theory implies something that is empirically false or not feasible, this is problematic. ( See [[http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=816224&rec=1&srcabs=999870|this]] )
Changed lines 39-42 from:
to:
# Moral theories
** "Ought" implies "can".
** If a moral theory implies something that is empirically false or not feasible, this is problematic.
Changed line 42 from:
* The inevitability of intuitions - Circularity in the philosophical arguments
to:
* Can we avoid intuitions? - Circularity in the philosophical arguments.
Changed lines 44-45 from:
to:
* Are emotions bad for morality?
Changed line 42 from:
* Circularity in the philosophical arguments
to:
* The inevitability of intuitions - Circularity in the philosophical arguments
Changed line 17 from:
* Framing effects, e.g. gain vs loss, order effects
to:
* Framing effects, e.g. gain vs loss, order effects, default choices
Changed lines 36-39 from:
** Our judgments are inconsist
** Our judgments are biased by irrelevant / inappropriate factors
to:
** Our judgments are inconsistent.
** Our judgments are biased by irrelevant / inappropriate factors.
** Our judgments are products of an unreliable process.
Changed line 35 from:
# Science undermines folk morality. How?
to:
# Science undermines folk morality.
Changed lines 43-45 from:
* Wide and narrow [[http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/reflect.php|Reflective equilibrium]]
to:
* Wide and narrow [[http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/reflect.php|reflective equilibrium]]
Changed lines 29-30 from:
to:
Added lines 40-45:
!!!Issues to consider
* Circularity in the philosophical arguments
* Wide and narrow [[http://www.philosophy.hku.hk/think/value/reflect.php|Reflective equilibrium]]
Changed lines 36-39 from:
** Inconsistency
** Biases / irrelevance
** Product of an unreliable process
to:
** Our judgments are inconsist
** Our judgments are biased by irrelevant / inappropriate factors
** Our judgments are products of an unreliable process
Deleted line 31:
# Science undermines folk morality
Changed lines 33-39 from:
to:
** Science helps us understand what kind of person we can become and how.
** Science helps us distinguish between good and bad moral intuitions.
# Science undermines folk morality. How?
** Inconsistency
** Biases / irrelevance
** Product of an unreliable process
Changed lines 33-34 from:
# Science ''improves'' folk morality
to:
# Science ''improves'' folk morality (Appiah (2008))
Changed line 31 from:
# No connection at all - The is-ought gap
to:
# No connection at all - [[IsOughtGap|The is-ought gap]]
Changed lines 19-21 from:
* Action biases due to irrelevant contextual factors
( Harman / Doris critique of virtue ethics )
to:
* Action biases due to irrelevant contextual factors ( Harman / Doris critique of virtue ethics )
Changed lines 20-21 from:
to:
( Harman / Doris critique of virtue ethics )
Changed lines 30-32 from:
* The is-ought gap
* How are undermining explanations possible?
to:
How are they related?
# No connection at all - The is-ought gap
# Science undermines folk morality
# Science ''improves'' folk morality
Changed line 17 from:
* Framing effects, e.g. gain vs loss, order effect
to:
* Framing effects, e.g. gain vs loss, order effects
Changed lines 19-20 from:
* Action biases due to contextual factors
to:
* Action biases due to irrelevant contextual factors
Changed lines 21-23 from:
@@@Isen and Levin (1972) - 87.5% of participants who had just found a dime in the coin in a phone booth helped a confederate (of the experimenter) who dropped a folder of papers, while only
4% who had found no coin helped.@@@
to:
@@@Isen and Levin (1972) - 87.5% of participants who had just found a dime in the coin in a phone booth helped a confederate (of the experimenter) who dropped a folder of papers, while only 4% who had found no coin helped.@@@
Changed lines 14-15 from:
!!Biases in moral reasoning
to:
!!Biases in moral thinking
Changed lines 19-23 from:
to:
* Action biases due to contextual factors
@@@Isen and Levin (1972) - 87.5% of participants who had just found a dime in the coin in a phone booth helped a confederate (of the experimenter) who dropped a folder of papers, while only
4% who had found no coin helped.@@@
Changed lines 24-25 from:
!!Neuroscience and morality
to:
!!Scientific facts and moral intuitions
Changed lines 27-28 from:
* Undermining explanations
to:
* How are undermining explanations possible?
Added lines 26-28:
* The is-ought gap
* Undermining explanations
Added lines 24-25:
!!Neuroscience and morality
Changed lines 20-21 from:
to:
Added line 16:
* Cultural / religious biases vs cognitive biases
Added lines 8-13:
!!Questions
* Which are the cognitive processes that underlie moral reasoning? How is it related to general reasoning?
* Is moral reasoning objective? Why should we trust our intuitions?
* Is science relevant to morality? In what ways?
Added lines 8-12:
!!Biases in moral reasoning
* Framing effects, e.g. gain vs loss, order effect
* Unconscious influence, e.g. hypnotic priming, [[http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/women-in-philosophy-whats-getting-left-out/#|gender biases]]
Changed lines 10-12 from:
to:
* TrolleyProblem
[[Category.Mind]]
Added lines 8-10:
!The trolley problem
* TrolleyProblem
Added lines 1-7:
!Cognitive science and moral intuitions
!!Readings
* [required] http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/
* [required] A. Appiah (2008). Experiments in Ethics. Harvard University Press. See the chapter "The case against intuition". [1-day reserve]