Difference between revisions of "SEPT 14"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==4: SEPT 14== ===Assigned=== :*Nadelhoffer, Thomas. "Introduction - Moral Responsibility has a Past - Has it a future?" (16) (Angelo/Scott) :*Waller. Bruce. "Moral Respons...")
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==4: SEPT 14==
+
==6: SEP 14==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:*Nadelhoffer, Thomas. "Introduction - Moral Responsibility has a Past - Has it a future?" (16) (Angelo/Scott)
+
:*Robert Sapolsky, from ''Behave'', Chapter 13, "Morality and doing the Right Thing, Once You've Figured Out What that Is." pp. 478-483.
  
−
:*Waller. Bruce. "Moral Responsibility is Morally Wrong"  (15) (Erik/Dionicio)
+
===In-class===
  
−
===Nadelhoffer, Thomas. "Introduction - Moral Responsibility has a Past - Has it a future?"===
+
:*Supplemental document for SW1.  Alfino, "Defining Morality and Values" (shared folder) for next time. Part of SW1.
 +
:*Theory of Mind
 +
:*Rubric training
  
−
:*Example of 9/11 crimes -- arguably launched retribution on big scale. War in Afghanistan and Iraq, Guantanamo.  Man hunt and execution of bin Laden.  
+
===Sapolsky, Robert. Behave. C 13, "Morality and Doing the Right Thing" (479-483)===
  
−
:*global skepticism about MR -- "no one is responsible" vs. local.  External vs. internal (revisionism).
+
:*What is the capacity: Theory of Mind?
 +
::*Theory of mind and baby prosociality. 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].  
  
−
:*sources: theoretical argument (Philosophy “proper” conversations) vs. empirical evidence (Philosophers working in the world!). 
+
:*Is moral decision making mostly reasoning or intuition?
  
−
:*Summary of Waller reading.  1. Problems with "hitting back".  2. Connected to BJW. 3. Faith in self-making powers. Cross cultural analysis to show superiority of non-retributive system.
+
::*The case for primacy of cognition:
 +
:::*Lots of examples of reason based rules in law and social institutions.  Law books. This kind of reasoning activates the dlPFC and TPJ (temporoparietal junction) - also for 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.) 
 +
:::*Better at detecting rule violations that have malevolent causes as their outcomes.  (Bias toward danger.). (Boss/environment/profits study)
 +
:::*Note comment about Singer (Trolley, trolley…)
  
−
:*Summary of Nagel's Luck argument.  Luck pincer.  bt. constitutive and present luck, no MR.  Caruso and the quarantine/public health model.   
+
::*The case for primacy of intuition:
 +
:::*We often don’t know why we make some judgements.   
 +
:::*Problem with the moral reasoning (cognitive) view: lots of evidence for intuition and emotion.  We often make moral judgements automatically. vmPFC before dlPFC.
 +
:::*Different types of transgressions activate, preferentially, vmPFC (and other areas) vs dlPFC. Pity, indignation, intense conflict all have “localizations”. Sexual transgressions activate the insula. Some predictive ability in this research.  People with damage to vmPFC will sacrifice 1 family member to save 5 strangers (Trolley…)
 +
:::*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"
  
−
:*Summary of Lemos.  While an event causal libertarian, Lemos argues that given the bad alternatives of abandoning MR, and the lack of certainty about free will, we should act as it we have it.  This requires replying to the "hard heartedness" of punishment with desert. 
+
===Rubric Training===
  
−
:*Summary of Shaw. Legal reform arguments.  Social protection approaches. (Shaw helps us see the ethical issues at the institutional level.  Coerced therapy would be problematic, for example.). Wants to draw inferences from how we treat non-resp to how a non-retrib system would look.
+
:*[[Assignment Rubric]] - Normalizing scores. What's a 5 out of 7? How likely are we to see 3, 2, or 1?
  
−
:*Summary of Coates: wants to undermine a common arg for “source incompatibilism” — Background to Coates: "Manipulation arguments" for incompatibalism try to show that determinism compromises MR as much as manipulation.  Original arguments from Mele and Pereboom “In a deterministic universe, we are in the same predicament as manipulated agents.  (p. 25). Soft compatibalists accept that manipulation compromises MR, but not that determinism does.  In other words, determinism doesn’t undermine FW in the same way that manipulation does.  Coates uses possible world semantics to make the distinction.  The idea is that in a near possible world that is indeterministic, the agent would have the same desires and goals, and his behavior would be like the determined self on this world.  This would seem to undermine a common line of thought leading to MR skepticism.  (Note Nadelhoffer registers his doubts.)
+
:*Today we will do some rubric training (sometimes called "grade norming").
  
−
:*Summary of Vargas: Instrumentalist - Revisionist. How does MR system benefit us ind/socially?  Argues that MR-system is part of how we navigate social space and become a full member of a moral community.  Revisionist side argues that we can jettison problematic folk psych theories or metaphysical underpinnings of MR and focus on justifying practices.
+
:*I have made a directory with writing and scores from a previous set of students writing on a different SW1 prompt.  You may find it valuable to open the spreadsheet document and read some of the 14s. If we have time in class, we may look at a few.  
−
 
+
::*Here's the prompt they were responding to:
−
===Waller. Bruce. "Moral Responsibility is Morally Wrong"===
+
:::*How does evolution shape moral 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 (400-450). Then raise and address a critical question you have about these ideas (150-200), drawing, if you wish, on the short writing, Alfino "Defining Morality and Values" (Do not reproduce the questions in your answer, but write a continuous essay that addresses both questions.)
−
 
 
−
:*MR: atavistic holdover, obsolete, fules retribution, populist punitivism, undermines right, promotes shaming, distorts FW, blocks understanding of behavior, comforts privileged, afflicts the poor.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Example of libertarian theorist who ack. limits of theory, but advocates pretending. Waller considers this damning evidence, but we will read a more sympathetic accounting of this position.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Peter Van Inwagen considers MR denial "absurd" - character in philosophy, ND.  Quote from SEP, "MR Skepticism, p. 39": "I have listened to philosophers who deny the existence of moral responsibility. I cannot take them seriously. I know a philosopher who has written a paper in which he denies the reality of moral responsibility. And yet this same philosopher, when certain of his books were stolen, said, “That was a shoddy thing to do!” But no one can consistently say that a certain act was a shoddy thing to do and say that its agent was not morally responsible when he performed it. (1983: 207) "An Essay on Free Will"  (With all due respect to this famous philosopher, what's wrong with this answer?)
 
−
 
 
−
:*MRS (MR system): assumed, need excuses to leave it, "strike back desire"  suggests with the "Larry, Mo and Curly" comment that MRS promoted hierarchy and dominance. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*Central Park 5 case as example.
 
−
 
 
−
:*3 features: desire to pass along pain, belief in just world (BJW), belief in self-making.
 
−
 
 
−
:*BJW related to "secondary victimization" (35). ex. blaming rape victims.  But History of Philosophy (and C. Church) line up for BJW.  But even Dennett, who denies BSW, defends the ultimate "fairness" of differences in capacity.  "luck averages out in the long run" (Really? [https://www.amazon.com/Son-Also-Rises-Surnames-Princeton-ebook/dp/B00HNF5Z96/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3IIJJH0N2ZE8V&dchild=1&keywords=the+son+also+rises+gregory+clark&qid=1612199204&sprefix=the+son+also+ri%2Caps%2C232&sr=8-1 The Son Also Rises]. Feeds ideology of "try harder"
 
−
 
 
−
:*p. 37- begins historical discussion of problem of evil and problem of free will.  
 
−
::*Is God's punishment of us just? 
 
−
:::*Renaissance Answer 1 - Lorenzo Valla - yes, because you are evil and evil deeds are punished.
 
−
:::*Renaissance Answer 2 - Pico della Mirandola - quote on our Protean nature. Special powers of self-making.  Not at all Valla's answer.  Rather, Pico is saying, "It's a good thing about us (our self-making/free will) that merits punishments.
 
−
:::*St. Paul seems to me to be invoking the argument that we cannot know God's ways. If it's coming from god, it must be just. 
 
−
 
 
−
:*"people make their choices from characters that are self-made" Note the "humunculus" problem here.  "Who is doing the making?"  We must read the Nietzsche quote.
 
−
 
 
−
:*Dennett's version: "I have created and unleashed an agent who is myself".  (note the sense in which that is intuitively true.  "OMG, what have I done!"  (Note concession at p. 39)
 
−
 
 
−
:*"folk metaphysics account of agency" -- transparency of csness, everyone has delib. reason.  Cites standard view in psychology: System 1 and System 2.
 
−
 
 
−
:*"The skill and fortitude and optimism and confidence with which you "play the cards that were dealt you" are ultimately among the cards that were dealt you."
 
−
 
 
−
:*Example of the "chronic cognizer" (Cassandra) and "cognitive miser" (Laura) --
 
−
 
 
−
:*Effects in CJ system: Foreshadows Caradino reading.
 

Latest revision as of 20:23, 14 September 2023

6: SEP 14

Assigned

  • Robert Sapolsky, from Behave, Chapter 13, "Morality and doing the Right Thing, Once You've Figured Out What that Is." pp. 478-483.

In-class

  • Supplemental document for SW1. Alfino, "Defining Morality and Values" (shared folder) for next time. Part of SW1.
  • Theory of Mind
  • Rubric training

Sapolsky, Robert. Behave. C 13, "Morality and Doing the Right Thing" (479-483)

  • What is the capacity: Theory of Mind?
  • Is moral decision making mostly reasoning or intuition?
  • The case for primacy of cognition:
  • Lots of examples of reason based rules in law and social institutions. Law books. This kind of reasoning activates the dlPFC and TPJ (temporoparietal junction) - also for 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.)
  • Better at detecting rule violations that have malevolent causes as their outcomes. (Bias toward danger.). (Boss/environment/profits study)
  • Note comment about Singer (Trolley, trolley…)
  • The case for primacy of intuition:
  • We often don’t know why we make some judgements.
  • Problem with the moral reasoning (cognitive) view: lots of evidence for intuition and emotion. We often make moral judgements automatically. vmPFC before dlPFC.
  • Different types of transgressions activate, preferentially, vmPFC (and other areas) vs dlPFC. Pity, indignation, intense conflict all have “localizations”. Sexual transgressions activate the insula. Some predictive ability in this research. People with damage to vmPFC will sacrifice 1 family member to save 5 strangers (Trolley…)
  • 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"

Rubric Training

  • Assignment Rubric - Normalizing scores. What's a 5 out of 7? How likely are we to see 3, 2, or 1?
  • Today we will do some rubric training (sometimes called "grade norming").
  • I have made a directory with writing and scores from a previous set of students writing on a different SW1 prompt. You may find it valuable to open the spreadsheet document and read some of the 14s. If we have time in class, we may look at a few.
  • Here's the prompt they were responding to:
  • How does evolution shape moral 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 (400-450). Then raise and address a critical question you have about these ideas (150-200), drawing, if you wish, on the short writing, Alfino "Defining Morality and Values" (Do not reproduce the questions in your answer, but write a continuous essay that addresses both questions.)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=SEPT_14&oldid=27124"