The Science of Morality

Fall 2021

Outline

1. Introduction
2. Singer Article
3. Haidt Talk
4. Pinker Article
5. Preview of next week

Introduction

Moral philosophy: Contemplates what we ought to do in particular situations, and evaluates the “rightness” and “wrongness” of a given action / set of actions.

Moral psychology: Studies how people form moral judgements, and how they actually behave in particular sets of circumstances in the “real world.”

What we ought to do (morally) versus what we actually do.

Nature: “The initial organization of the brain does not rely that much on experience. Nature provides a first draft, which experience then revises... 'Built-in' does not mean unmalleable; it means organized in advance of experience.” (Marcus, 2004, via Haidt).

Nurture / Culture: “At the very least, the science tells us that even when our adversaries’ agenda is most baffling, they may not be amoral psychopaths but in the throes of a moral mind-set that appears to them to be every bit as mandatory and universal as ours does to us.” (Pinker)

Singer (1999)

The runaway train, the Bugatti, and world poverty.

• In your view, what were the strengths and weaknesses of Singer’s comparison of the Bugatti scenario to donating to charity?
• What reasons does Singer give re: why people don’t people give more to charity?

Singer (Consequentialist)

Strengths???

• Gets you to reflect on how you spend your money.
• Charity does make an impact
• Choice: you always have a choice whether to spend money or to donate it.

Weaknesses???

• Who has the burden of responsibility?
• How much harm must you incur?
• All investments aren’t equal. Charity v. other contributions.
• Cumulative impacts? Intent?
• Scenarios aren’t comparable. Degrees of separation.
• So many problems; so many ways to contribute. How do we know how the $ is being spent.
• What is money for: spending, charity, savings,

Other Reflections (Singer)?

????

Attendance Prompt

Quick attendance check.

Access code: tomate

Haidt (2008)

Haidt argues that there are 5 universal moral �‘spheres’ that people tend to hold, and that �the weights given to 3-5 differ most between �liberals & conservatives:

1. Harm / care
2. Fairness / reciprocity
3. In-group / loyalty
4. Authority / respect
5. Purity / sanctity

Do you think that all debates can be distilled down to differences in how these moral spheres are weighted? Try applying this theory to a moral debate. Does it work? Does it help you to better understand a different perspective?

Haidt Reflections...

• You can see the logic of a perspective...but it doesn’t really help you relate to the other perspective
• Vaccine & Mask Mandates:
• Conservatives weighting authority less? But then again, the authority figure isn’t the government...it’s a news source or a minister.
• Abortion: Moral value of harm: fetus v. mother – both dimensions of harm
• Framework not exhaustive. How can you debate right and wrong if the very terms / constructs are not in agreement?
• Cultures interpret the 5 values differently. Useful to humanize the moral logic (even if it’s not your own). You don’t always have to agree or disagree with someone. Recognizing that we have cultural differences but perhaps others’ are valid

Haidt Reflections...

• Our moralization isn’t necessarily logical. They can’t be explained by logic (versus what benefits us)
• Can this framework really guide action
• Making societies more left-leaning → older generations die.

Pinker

1. Consider the quote:

“Much of our recent social history, including the culture wars between liberals and conservatives, consists of the moralization or amoralization of particular kinds of behavior.”

Can you think of some examples (not already named by Pinker) of moralization / amoralization of certain behaviors?

• Read and discuss second to last paragraph on p. 15, beginning:

“And nowhere is moralization more of a hazard...”

Pinker Reflections...

Summary & Wrap-Up

Haidt & Pinker helped us think about what kinds of moral practices that humans actually engage in, namely:

• There is a “science” of morality – with some universal moral ideas that are arguably “instinctive” (i.e. we’re born with them).
• These foundational ideas are then shaped by culture, experience, social position, religion, and so forth
• We’re all operating according to a “moral mindset” – even if�those mindsets lead to very different conclusions.

But how do we think about what we should do?

Next week: Moral philosophy can help us decide. Sandel: Examines various philosophical traditions, and how each defines and gives weight to 3 ideas:

Welfare�The wellbeing of a person or group; tends to be used interchangeably with the economic aspects of welfare, but the term is much broader

Freedom�The ability to exercise one’s free will.

Virtue�Refers to certain qualities that are intrinsically “good”