MAY 2

30: MAY 2. Course Conclusion

story of Dali Lama’s famous round tables from the 90s. (Also, my first philosophy professor, Owen Flanagan was in this group.)

Point: Buddhist ethics not “rule based” like most Western ethics thought. Rule Purveyors v Wisdom seekers.

Rule based - Utilitarian, Kantian, Rawlsian. Not successful - moral decision making is about “constraint satisfaction” not exceptionless rules. Some of the constraints: time, predictions, values.

Religion - problems of different religions, the Euthyphro problem (153).
Reason - Morality is separate from nature. Reasoning separates us from natural inclinations, which are non-moral. Kant. Can’t base morality on non-contradiction. Utilitarians - also thought they’d found the one true principle of morality in the principle of utility. But they don’t really motivate the idea that we should promote everyone’s happiness. Our natural partiality to kin and friends is a problem for utilitarian.

Should we be trying to base morality on impartial rules? Ought implies can. Utilitarians run afoul of this when they ask us to favor 20 orphans over our 2 kids.

Utilitarians also fail to give us a guide to evaluating consequences, even though they offer a consequentialist rule. Consequences will be evaluated differently based on background beliefs. A hermit v. An entrepreneur, for example. Utilitarian “math” can specific the option that maximizes utility, but that often runs rough over other values (see list and 163). (You can commit crimes in the name of happiness promotion. - Blackburn) (Stalin sure did.)

Churchland’s main argument - The problem with rule purveyors is that they reduce morality to one constraints that needs to be satisfied, whereas morality is typically about satisfying many constraints. When you look at how decision making really works in the brain, it’s more complex.

The neurobiology of decision making suggests that it involves “case based reasoning”. Lot of considerations: facts of the case, but also implications of different actions, constraints of prior value commitments, opinions of others, culture, etc.

Cites mammalian precursors to morality - consoling a friend, cooperating, sharing, reconciling, punishing. Animal studies of oxytocin spikes before and after conflict.

Thesis: “I have come to view the prospect of a clear, simple rule or set of rules… as undermined by the reality of social life.” 167.

Habits, such as virtue ethics counsels are important ways of simplifying the contstraint satisfaction process. If your default is “act with kindness” you might have an efficient bias.

Churchland’s definition of morality is roughly compatible with our defines of values: …shared attitudes and practices that regulate individual behavior to facilitate cohesion and well being among individuals and groups.” 169.

Inuit example - (pre-agriculture (or mixed)) - v - Hammurabi’s code - (post agriculture). Most of our time as a species is more like the Inuits.

Voice of conscience - anecdotes also about culture and conscience. Culture affects how we describe what we feel. (In my work: Culture as a way of seeing some problems “as” and not seeing.). Thinking here about how social norms are instantiated in our neuro-biology.

Contrasts the biological with “mainstream” views like religion or reason as the source of morality. (Note: She’s missing Henrich and cultural evolution. “Whatever else is true…” religions culture is still a source of norms.).

At the close, she wants to trigger appreciation of the brain and how we’ve underestimated the power of reward learning. 86 billion neurons. Mamma mia! Add in connections, 10,000 per neuron, and you are off to the races!

nice point: The neurobiology guarantees differences. Nice Marcus Aurelius quote. Read.