View source for AUG 31

==2: AUG 31. Unit One: An Interdisciplinary Theory of Morality==

===Assigned===

:*Ariely, Why We Lie (6)
:*Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Intro and Chapter 1 (24)
:*Zimbardo Experiment -- view one of the youtube videos about the experiment.  read the wiki page.
:*1st Dropbox Assignment assigned, not due today

===Method: Reporting Findings from Social Science research===

:*Brief glance at [[Philosophical Methods]]

:*Tips on How to report study findings

:*Philosophy makes use of a wide range of evidence and knowledge.  In this course you will encounter alot of psychological, anthropological and cultural studies.  You have to practice the way you represent studies (as opposed to theories) and how you make inferences from their conclusions.  

:*Some key elements to distinguish in reporting research:
::*observational, survey, experimental
::*study setup: for observational: who were the test subjects, what were they asked to do; for survey: what instrument was used, to whom was it given?
::*what conditions were tested?
::*what was the immediate result?
::*what was the significance or inference to be made from the results?

===Ariely, Why We Lie===

:*Assumptions:  we think honesty is an all or nothing trait.
:*Research on honesty with the "matrix task"
::*Shredder condition
::*Payment condition
::*Probability of getting caught condition
::*Distance of payment condition
::*Presence of a cheater condition
:*Priming with 10 commandments or signature on top of form
:*Implications: for current and possible new approaches to limit cheating. 
:*Philosophical Implications: What, if anything, does this tell us about the nature of ethics? 

===Debrief on Zimbardo - Stanford Prison Experiment===

:*Let's practice our protocol for reporting research here.  
:*What are the principle insights from this experiment?  How might they relate to recent events?

===1st Writing and Dropbox practice (not due on today’s class)===

:*Please write a 250 word maximum answer to the following question by '''Tuesday, September 5, 11:59pm.'''  This assignment will give us some initial writing to look at and give you practice with the dropbox protocol for turning in pseudonymous writing in the course. For this assignment, the writing itself is ungraded, but you will receive 15 points for following the instructions accurately.

::*'''Topic:''' Is it morally acceptable to gossip?  If so, under what conditions and why? Does gossip serve a legitimate purpose?  If so, what is it?  [Note: Definitions of gossip are somewhat variable.  For this assignment, gossip is "Sharing information about others that may be of a personal, embarrassing, or unflattering nature.  Typically, when we gossip, we do not want the person(s) gossiped about to know that we have gossiped about them.  
 
::*'''Prompt Advice''':  Try to make your position clear (the "what") and the reasons clear (the "why").  Good arguments also try to respond to objections and consider the most reasonable opposing views.  Your position is likely to be stronger if it is qualified in various ways.  I strongly encourage you to draft your answer the night before it is due and return to it on the night that it is due.

:*'''Advice about collaboration''': Collaboration is part of the academic process and the intellectual world that college courses are based on, so it is important to me that you have the possibility to collaborate.  I encourage you to collaborate with other students, but only up to the point of sharing ideas, references to class notes, and your own notes, '''verbally'''.  Collaboration  is also a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs in the class.  The best way to avoid plagiarism is to NOT share text of draft answers or outlines of your answer.  Keep it verbal.  Generate your own examples.  

::# To assure anonymity, you must remove your name from the "author name" that you may have provided when you set up your word processing application. For instructions on removing your name from an Word or Google document, [[https://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php/Removing_your_name_from_a_Word_file click here]]. 
::# Format your answer in double spaced text, in a typical 12 point font, and using normal margins. Do not add spaces between paragraphs, but do indent the first line of each paragraph.  
::# '''Do not put your name in the file or filename'''.  You may put your student ID number in the file.  Always put a word count in the file. Save your file for this assignment with the name: Gossip.
::# To turn in your assignment, log into courses.alfino.org, click on the "#0 1st Writing and Dropbox practice" dropbox. 
::# If you cannot meet a deadline, you must email me about your circumstances (unless you are having an emergency) '''before''' the deadline or you will lose points.

===Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Intro and Chapter 1===

*Intro
:*Note: starts with problem of "getting along" -- problem of ethics is settling conflict (recall contrast with more traditional goal of finding a method or theory to discover moral truth).
:*The "righteous" mind is at once moral and judgmental.  It makes possible group cooperation, tribes, nations, and societies.

:*Majors claims of each section:
::*Intuitions come first, reasoning second. ''The mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider's job is to serve the elephant.''
::*There's more to morality than harm and fairness
::*Morality binds and blinds -- We are 90 percent chimp, 10% bee.

:*Moral reasoning as a means of finding truth vs. furthering social agendas. 

*Chapter 1

:*Harmless taboo violations: eating the dog / violating a dead chicken.

:*Brief background on developmental & moral psychology: p. 5
:::*nativists -- nature gives us capacities to distinguish right from wrong, possibly using moral emotions.
:::*empiricists -- we learn the difference between right and wrong from experience. '''tabula rasa'''.  
:::*rationalists -- circa '87 Piaget's alternative to nature/nurture -- there is both a natural developmental requirement and empirical requirement for understanding the world in the way we consider "rational" (folk physics, folk psychology). Example of language development interruptions - "critical stages" 
::*Piaget's rationalism: kids figure things out for themselves if they have normal brains and the right experiences. stages: example of conservation of volume of water (6)  "self-constructed" - alt to nature/nurture.  7: We grow into our rationality like caterpillars into butterflies.

::*Kohlberg's "Heinz story" - pre-conventional, conventional, post-conventional. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development#/media/File:Kohlberg_Model_of_Moral_Development.svg] 
:::*note problems, p. 9. seems to support a liberal secular world view.  Egalitarianism, role playing, disinterestedness....  Is it obvious or suspicious that that's what rationalism leads to?  Haidt suspects something's been left out.

:::*Additional criticisms of Kohlberg (also at Haidt 9): seemed to diminish the importance of loyalty, authority, and tradition as less developed levels of moral response. Abstracts from relationships.  (Could it be that morality is independent of our concrete relationships? Not likely.)

::*Turiel: note different method.  Probing to find contingencies in kids' thinking about rules.  kids don't treat all moral rules the same: very young kids distinguish "harms" from "social conventions".  Harm is "first on the scene" in the dev. of our moral foundations.  (Note: Still following the idea that moral development is a universal, culturally neutral process.)  (Note on method: we have, in Turiel's research, a '''discovery of an unsupported assumption'''.)

:*Haidt's puzzle about Turiel: other dimensions of moral experience, like "purity" and "pollution" seem operative at young ages and deep in culture (witches -- how do human minds create witches in similar ways in different places?). 11-13 examples. Found answers in Schweder's work.

:*In what ways is the concept of the self culturally variable? 

::*Schweder: sociocentric vs. individualistic cultures.  Interview subjects in sociocentric societies don't make the moral/conventional distinction the same way we (westerns) do.  (Schweder is "saying" to Kohlberg and Turiel: your model is culturally specific.)  For example in the comparison of moral violations between Indians from Orissa and Americans from Chicago, it is important that these groups don't make the convention/harm distinction Turiel's theory would predict.  That's a distinction individualist cultures make. 
 
:*Haidt's research:  Wrote vignettes to ask test subjects, including Turiel's uniform / swing pushing incident.  focus on vignettes is "harmless taboo violation"  (no victim /no harm), which pits intuitions about norms and conventions against intuitions about the morality of harm.  Study in three cities with two socio-economic groups.  Showed that Schweder was right.  ''The morality/convention distinction was itself culturally variable.''  
::*Americans make big dist. between morality and convention.  upper-class Brazilians like Americans.  lower class groups tended to see smaller morality/convention difference. All morality.  
:*Turiel is right about how our culture makes the harm/convention distinction, but his theory doesn't travel well. Roughly, more sociocentric cultures put the morality(wrong even if no rule)/convention (wrong because there is a rule) marker more to the morality side.  almost no trace of social conventionalism in Orissa.

:*Identify, if possible, some practices and beliefs from either your personal views, your family, or your ethnic or cultural background which show a particular way of making the moral/conventional distinction.  (Example: For some families removing shoes at the door is right thing to do, whereas for others it is just experienced as a convention.  '''Would you eat a burrito in a public bathroom?'''  Tell story of dinner out with a vegan friend.)

:*'''Haidt's narrative in C1'''
::*Early theories in developmental and moral psychology involved different forms of inateism, empiricism, and rationalism.  Piaget brought these together in a new way, but he and Kohlberg were hanging on to a "universalism" about development that left out contingent factors like culture, environments, and evolved psychology.  Specifically, Kohlberg thought that there were objective and universal "types" of morality, some representing objectively "higher" levels of thought. But when Turiel went looking for these universal features of morality with his "harm/social convention" research, we discovered that his theory "did not travel well".  In other words, there are cultural differences in how the "harm/social convention" distinction gets made.  This led Haidt to his "harmless taboo" research, which seems to show that both culture and social class affect our judgement about the difference between "harm/social convention".