Difference between revisions of "Summer1 2014 Ethics Course Lecture Notes A"
From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to searchLine 28: | Line 28: | ||
==Wednesday May 21, 2014== | ==Wednesday May 21, 2014== | ||
+ | |||
+ | ===Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Intro and Chapter 1=== | ||
+ | |||
+ | :*Moral reasoning as a means of finding truth vs. furthering social agendas. | ||
+ | :*Harmless taboo violations: eating the dog / violating a dead chicken. | ||
+ | :*Brief background on developmental & moral psychology: nativists, empiricists, rationalists | ||
+ | ::*Piaget's rationalism: kids figure things out for themselves if they have normal brains and the right experiences. "self-constructed" - alt to nature/nurture. | ||
+ | ::*Kohlberg's "Heinz story" - note problems, p. 9. | ||
+ | ::*Turiel: kids don't treat all moral rules the same: very young kids distinguish "harms" from "social conventions" | ||
+ | :*Haidt's puzzle about Turiel: other dimensions of moral experience, like "purity" and "pollution" seem operative at young ages and deep in culture (witches). Found answers in Schweder's work. | ||
+ | :*Schweder: sociocentric vs. individualistic cultures. Interview subjects in sociocentric societies don't make the conventional/non-conventional distinction. | ||
+ | :*Point of harmless taboo violations: pit intuitions about norms and conventions against intuitions about the morality of harm. Showed that Schweder was right. The morality/convention distinction was culturally variable. | ||
==Thursday May 22, 2014== | ==Thursday May 22, 2014== |
Revision as of 21:09, 20 May 2014
Return to Ethics Online Summer 2014
Reference Dates: We don't have specific class dates in this online course, but here are some dates that I might post information on.
Contents
- 1 Monday May 19, 2014
- 2 Tuesday May 20, 2014
- 3 Wednesday May 21, 2014
- 4 Thursday May 22, 2014
- 5 Monday May 26, 2014
- 6 Tuesday May 27, 2014
- 7 Wednesday May 28, 2014
- 8 Thursday, May 29, 2014
- 9 Monday June 2, 2014
- 10 Tuesday June 3, 2014
- 11 Wednesday June 4, 2014
- 12 Thursday June 5, 2014
- 13 Monday June 9, 2014
- 14 Tuesday June 10, 2014
- 15 Wednesday June 11, 2014
- 16 Thursday June 12, 2014
- 17 Monday June 16, 2014
- 18 Tuesday June 17, 2014
- 19 Wendnesday June 18, 2014
- 20 Thursday June 19, 2014
- 21 Monday June 23, 2014
- 22 Tuesday June 24, 2014
- 23 Wednesday June 25, 2014
- 24 Thursday June 26, 2014
Monday May 19, 2014
Tuesday May 20, 2014
Ariely, Why We Lie
- 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
Tips on How to report study findings
- 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 immeditate result?
- what was the significance or inference to be made from the results?
Wednesday May 21, 2014
Haidt, The Righteous Mind, Intro and Chapter 1
- Moral reasoning as a means of finding truth vs. furthering social agendas.
- Harmless taboo violations: eating the dog / violating a dead chicken.
- Brief background on developmental & moral psychology: nativists, empiricists, rationalists
- Piaget's rationalism: kids figure things out for themselves if they have normal brains and the right experiences. "self-constructed" - alt to nature/nurture.
- Kohlberg's "Heinz story" - note problems, p. 9.
- Turiel: kids don't treat all moral rules the same: very young kids distinguish "harms" from "social conventions"
- Haidt's puzzle about Turiel: other dimensions of moral experience, like "purity" and "pollution" seem operative at young ages and deep in culture (witches). Found answers in Schweder's work.
- Schweder: sociocentric vs. individualistic cultures. Interview subjects in sociocentric societies don't make the conventional/non-conventional distinction.
- Point of harmless taboo violations: pit intuitions about norms and conventions against intuitions about the morality of harm. Showed that Schweder was right. The morality/convention distinction was culturally variable.