|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==7: FEB 1. Unit Two: More moral psychology, politics, biology and philosophical moral theories!== | + | ==6: FEB 1. == |
| | | | |
| | ===Assigned=== | | ===Assigned=== |
| | | | |
| − | :*Robert Sapolsky, from ''Behave'', Chapter 13, "Morality and doing the Right Thing, Once You've Figured Out What that Is." pp. 478-483. | + | :*Wrangham C10 – “The Evolution of Right and Wrong” – 2nd half (210-220; 10) – Key concepts: Good Samaritan Problem, emotions as moral guides, interference, baby prosociality, Ultimatum Game, reverse dominance hierarchies, self-protection, conformity, obedience, shame, guilt, and embarrassment. |
| − | :*Haidt, Chapter 3, "Elephants Rule" (52-72)
| |
| − | :*The Trolley Problem
| |
| − | ::*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WB3Q5EF4Sg The Trolley Problem]. Variations on the Trolley Problem: [[http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/lesser-known-trolley-problem-variations ]]
| |
| − | ::*Self-driving cars with Trolley problems: [http://www.cnet.com/news/self-driving-car-advocates-tangle-with-messy-morality/]
| |
| − | :*[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/10/the-cold-logic-of-drunk-people/381908/ The Cold Logic of Drunk People]
| |
| | | | |
| − | :*Watch this PBS Philosophy Crash course on utilitarianism. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a739VjqdSI]
| + | ===In-Class=== |
| | | | |
| − | :*SW1 Assigned today: Writing due February 4th. | + | :*Rubric and Process |
| | + | :*Bonobos (Wrangham C5) |
| | + | :*The Tyrant Problem and Capital Punishment (C7 & C8) |
| | | | |
| − | ===In-class content=== | + | ===Rubric and Process=== |
| | | | |
| − | :*A Second look at “Morality as a product of Evolution” | + | :*[[Assignment Rubric]] - Normalizing scores. What's a 5 out of 7? How likely are we to see 3, 2, or 1? |
| − | :*SW1 Assignment - Review
| |
| − | :*Consequentialism - Utilitarianism
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Summing up Sapolsky: Morality as a product of Evolution===
| + | :*Today we will do some rubric training (sometimes called "grade norming"). |
| | | | |
| − | :*Some key claims and inferences: | + | :*Process for writing review, scoring, and comments. (Use SW1 assignment.) |
| − | ::*Evolution shapes our bodies, our behaviors, and our ideas (evo-psych)
| |
| − | ::*Cooperation and coalitions can give us a fitness advantage.
| |
| − | ::*A problem with cooperation is to not become a sucker.
| |
| − | ::*This is a problem we can address with values (e.g. it’s a moral problem).
| |
| − | ::*Values are expectations of others to think, speak, feel, and act in particular ways (and sometimes to refrain from thinking, speaking, etc. in particular ways). (My def. Not in Sapolsky)
| |
| − | ::*Morality isn’t only about cooperation. It includes a set of basic social dilemmas and existential problems that affect our ability to thrive. These are both personal and political problems. (not quite from Sapolsky)
| |
| − | ::*Morality is a product of evolution in the sense that it is a cultural practice that helps up manage problems that can affect our fitness.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Philosophical Moral Theories: Consequentialism -- Utilitarianism=== | + | ===Wrangham C10 – “The Evolution of Right and Wrong” – 2nd half (210-220; 10)=== |
| | | | |
| − | :*Brief historical intro to utilitarians: Early industrial society, "social statics" (early efforts to measure social conditions). Utilitarians were seen as reformers. | + | :*See notes from previous class. |
| | | | |
| − | ::*Eudaimonistic(about Happiness or Well-Being) vs. Non-Eudaimonistic (Duty)
| + | ===The Tyrant Problem and Capital Punishment (C7 & C8)=== |
| − | :::*Two views:
| |
| − | ::::*1) Morality is fundamentally eudaimonistic "in the long run," even if it in particular proximate circumstances in does not always involve positive emotions (includes Utilitarians).
| |
| − | ::::*2) Morality and moral responses realize disinterested values like reason and justice, that are not related to promoting happy outcomes (Kant / Duty ethics).
| |
| | | | |
| − | :*'''Fundamental consequentialist intuition''': Most of what's important about morality can be seen in outcomes of our actions that promote happiness and human well-being. (Recall "Intentions-Acts-Consequences") | + | :*The Tyrant problem and Capital Punishment- Evidence of use of capital punishment in human societies. Execution was a selective pressure against aggressive individuals (mostly males). Or, "We evolved a behavior of using coalitionary proactive aggression against bullies." |
| | | | |
| − | :*Basic principles of utilitarian thought: | + | :*Execution hypothesis - Selection against aggressiveness and in favor of greater docility came from execution of the most anti-social individuals. |
| | | | |
| − | ::*'''Equal Happiness Principle''': Everyone's happiness matters to them as much as mine does to me. Everyone's interests have equal weight. (Note this is a rational principle. Emotionally, it's false.)
| + | :*Has Darwin’s support, even though he didn’t think we self-dom. Appreciated that contemporary society’s execution practice was a kind of selection pressure. (Prison does nothing for your dating prospects.) More dominant theory has been: parochial altruism hypothesis — groups that could cooperate in war have an advantage. Specifically self-sacrifice. But this is not seen in hunter-gather groups. Maybe more of a cultural level effect. |
| − | :::*Note on method: this is a way to universalize. Recall earlier discussion about conditions for ethical discourse. Ethics is about figuring out when we need to take a moral concern about something and, if we do, then we take on constraint (conversational): universalizability, equality of interests.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ::*'''Principle of Utility''': Act always so that you promote the greatest good for the greatest number.
| + | :*Alexander argues that reputation is the key to h.sapien cooperation. Gossip matters. Chimps don’t gossip and don’t care about their reputation. Evidence from h-gatherers. Reputation matters. 137. |
| − | :::*Hedonic version: Act to promote the greatest pleasure ...
| |
| − | :::*Classical utilitarian: greatest balance of range of qualitatively diverse pleasures and aspects of well-being.
| |
| − | :::*Preference utilitarian version: Act to maximally fulfill our interest in acting on our preferences.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ::*But what is utility? What is a preference?
| + | :*Solution to the Tyrant problem (an alpha male who doesn’t care about his reputation) is for coalitions of males to kill him. |
| − | ::*'''Utility''': pleasure, what is useful, happiness, well-being.
| |
| − | :::*Is the utilitarian committed to maximizing happiness of individuals directly? A utilitarian focused on promoting utility, might still acknowledge that promoting human happiness is mostly about protecting conditions for an individual's autonomous pursuit of happiness. Consider cases: When does promoting the greater good involve letting people make their own decisions vs. managing or regulating an issue centrally?
| |
| − | :::*Conditions for the pursuit of happiness: Order, stability, opportunity, education, health, rights, liberty.
| |
| − | :::*Issue of protection of rights in utilitarian thought.
| |
| − | ::*'''Preferences''':
| |
| − | :::*An indirect way to solve the problem of lack of agreement about goods. Let's maximize opportunities for people to express their preferences. Positive: pushing the question of the good life to the individual. Negative: High levels of individualism may reduce social trust. Lack of action on opportunities to reduce suffering.
| |
| − | :::*Thought experiment: Returning a gun to an angry person. Is the angry person's preference one that has to count?
| |
| − | :::*Cultural contradictions in our preferences: we prefer health, but we also "prefer" to eat the western diet. Which preference should the utilitarian focus on? Some preferences are based on bias or prejudice.
| |
| − | :::*Need some standard of rational or considered preference. What a "reasonable person" would do. Maybe less disagreement about that than "the good". (Example: Intervening in the lives of homeless mentally ill and suffering.)
| |
| | | | |
| − | ====Group Discussion: Assessing Utilitarianism====
| + | :*C8 - Capital punishment |
| | | | |
| − | :*Consider applying utilitarianism to different kinds of moral problems (from interpersonal ethics to public policy questions). Identify three situations in which you would want to use utilitarianism and three situations in which you would not. | + | :*Used to be lots of ways to get executed. Read at 143. Popular. Crimes to execution in a few days. Not just America. Capital punishment is a human universal. By contrast, other primates allow for contests against the alpha male. |
| | | | |
| − | ===Sapolsky, Robert. Behave. C 13, "Morality and Doing the Right Thing" (479-483)===
| + | :*Examples of male coalitions in h-gather groups. Importance of self-deprecation to show you are not arrogant. Egalitarian expectation. Predates ag societies hierarchy. |
| | | | |
| − | :*Is moral decision making mostly reasoning or intuition? | + | :*Why aren’t there alpha males around h-gatherers. Story 157 of gift of ox that backfires. (Like anti-social punishment). Dom from cap pun supported by absence of alpha males and egalitarian values among males. |
| − | ::*The case for primacy of cognition:
| |
| − | :::*Lots of examples of reason based rules in law and social institutions. This kind of reasoning activates the dlPFC and TPJ (temporoparietal junction) - theory of mind tasks. Suppress TPJ and less concern about intentions! Yikes.
| |
| − | :::*Theory of Mind tasks are those involving perceiving and inferring intentions. Central to social life!
| |
| − | :::*Moral reasoning is skewed toward the cognitive in some predictable ways: doing harm worse than allowing it. commission vs. omission. tend to look for malevolent causes more than benevolent.
| |
| | | | |
| − | ::*The case for primacy of intuition:
| + | :*161: genetic account — Would 300,000 years (12,000 generations) be enough? Some indicators, yes. But needs language. Language comes in bt 100,000 and 60,000 y ago. Good evidence h.sapien langauge better than other homo. |
| − | :::*Problem with moral reasoning (cognitive) view: lots of evidence for intuition and emotion. We often make moral judgements automatically.
| |
| − | :::*Reviews Haidt's Social Intuitionism: "moral thinking is for social doing". The reasoning is mostly to show others what we're doing (and to "advertise" it). "virtue signaling"
| |
| − | :::*Moral decisions activate the vmPFC, orbitalfrontal cortex, insular cortex, and anterior cingulate. Pity and indignation activate different structures. Sexual transgressions activate the insula.
| |
| − | :::*In moral quandries, activation of amygdala, vmPFC, and insula typically '''precede''' dlPfc activation.
| |
| − | :::*people with damage to the vmPFC will sacrifice one relative to save five strangers, something control subjects just don't do!
| |
| | | | |
| − | ===Haidt, Chapter 3, "Elephants Rule"===
| + | :*”The development of increasingly skilled language, in combination with our evolved solution to the tyrant problem, thus provides the best basis for the ultimate explanation of human domestication. Or, "Unlike chimps, but like bonobos, h. sapiens did not tolerate alpha males ruling by 1-1 contests for dominance. Humans and bonobos gang up on tyrants." |
| | | | |
| − | *Personal Anecdote from Haidt's married life: your inner lawyer (automatic speech)
| + | ===Small Group Discussion: "The Paradox" and "More Bonobo"?=== |
| − | :*Priming studies: "take" "often" -- working with neutral stories also
| |
| | | | |
| − | *'''Research supporting "intuitions come first"''' | + | :*In your small group discussion consider two questions: |
| | + | ::*1. What is the "paradox of goodness" in Wrangham's theory of the the origins of morality? |
| | + | ::*2. Would we be better off if we were less chimp and more bonobo? (Your group might also speculate about how that could come about. Should we raise our expectations for tolerance and non-aggression? Lower our groupishness?) |
| | | | |
| − | :*1. Brains evaluate instantly and constantly | + | :*Fill in this group [https://forms.gle/DttvYZ1pD9xgGns97 report form] with your best answer to each questions. You each receive 5 points for completing the form. |
| − | ::*Zajonc on "affective primacy"- small flashes of pos/neg feeling from ongoing cs stimuli - even applies to made up language "mere exposure effect" tendency to have more positive responses to something just be repeat exposure.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*2. Social and Political judgements are especially intuitive
| |
| − | ::*'''Affective Priming''' - flashing word pairs with dissonance: "flower - happiness" vs. "hate - sunshine"
| |
| − | ::*Implicit Association Test [https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ Project Implicit]
| |
| − | ::*Flashing word pairs with political terms causes '''dissonance'''. measurable delay in response when, say, conservatives read "Clinton" and "sunshine". Dissonance is pain.
| |
| − | ::*Todorov's work extending "attractiveness" advantage to snap judgements. "Competency" judgments of political candidates correct 2/3 of time. note:
| |
| − | ::*Judgements of competence. note speed of judgement .1 of a second.(59)
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*3. Bodies guide judgements
| |
| − | ::*Fart Spray exaggerates moral judgements (!)
| |
| − | ::*Zhong: hand washing before and after moral judgements.
| |
| − | ::*Helzer and Pizarro: standing near a sanitizer strengthens conservatism.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*4. Psychopaths: reason but don't feel
| |
| − | ::*Transcript from Robert Hare research
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*5. Babies: feel but don't reason
| |
| − | ::*Theory behind startle response studies in infants
| |
| − | ::*helper and hinderer puppet shows: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anCaGBsBOxM Yale Theory of Mind & Baby prosociality] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7JbLSIirXI Basic Puppet set up for prosociality studies on babies].
| |
| − | ::*reaching for helper puppets "parsing their social world"
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*6. Affective reactions in the brain '''Belief Change'''
| |
| − | ::*Josh Greene's fMRI studies of Trolley type problems. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WB3Q5EF4Sg The Trolley Problem]
| |
| − | ::*Pause on Joshua Greene quote, p. 67
| |
| − | :*When does the elephant listen to reason?
| |
| − | :*Paxton and Greene experiments with incest story using versions with good and bad arguments. Harvard students showed no difference, though some when allowed delayed response.
| |
| − | ::*Friends... The Importance of Friends...Friends are really important...
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===SW1 Intuitions Come First (600 words)===
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''Stage 1''': Please write an 600 word maximum answer to the following question by '''Friday, February 4th, 2022 11:59pm.'''
| |
| − | ::*Topic: How does evolution cause social behaviors in animals and in species like us? Is there good reason to think that some moral social behaviors or morality itself is a product of evolution? Present Sapolsky's answers to these questions in a detailed and well organized short essay.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way. '''You will lose points''' if you do not follow these instructions:
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::# To assure anonymity, you must remove your name from the 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 and 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: '''EvolvedMorality'''.
| |
| − | ::# To turn in your assignment, log into courses.alfino.org, click on the '''"1 - Points"''' 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.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''Stage 2''': Please evaluate '''four''' student answers and provide brief comments and a score. Review the [[Assignment Rubric]] for this exercise. We will be using the Flow and Content areas of the rubric for this assignment. Complete your evaluations and scoring by '''Thursday February 10th, 2022 11:59pm.'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::*To determine the papers you need to peer review, open the file called "#Key.xls" in the shared folder. You will see a worksheet with saint names in alphabetically order, along with animal names. Find your saint name and review the next four (4) animals' work below your animal name. If you get to the bottom of the list before reaching 4 animals, go to the top of the list and continue.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::*Use [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScBr7Re9VbLaFk8doTPu5h81I5PE7aRJ19x9vq-oHAst0R9eg/viewform?usp=sf_link this Google Form] to evaluate '''four''' peer papers. Submit the form once for each review.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::*Some papers may arrive late. If you are in line to review a missing paper, allow a day or two for it to show up. If it does not show up, go back to the key and review the next animal's paper, continuing until you get four reviews. Do not review more than four papers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''Stage 3''': I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking. Assuming the process works normally, most of my scores probably be within 1-2 points of the peer scores, plus or minus.
| |
| − | | |
| − | :*'''Stage 4''': Back-evaluation: After you receive your peer comments and my evaluation, take a few minutes to fill out this quick "back evaluation" rating form: [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdgKCYITDTSOOHcvC3TAVNK-EZDsP4jiiyPj-7jdpRoNUsLPA/viewform?usp=sf_link]. '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.''' '''You must do the back evaluation to receive credit for the whole assignment.''' Failing to give back-evaluations unfairly affects other classmates.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ::*Back evaluations are due '''Thursday, February 17th, 2022, 11:59pm'''.
| |
