Difference between revisions of "APR 4"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==20: APR 4: Unit Four: Justice and Justified Partiality==
+
==22: APR 4. ==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:*[https://www.npr.org/2020/06/05/870352402/playing-favorites-when-kindness-toward-some-means-callousness-toward-others Hidden Brain, "Playing Favorites: When kindness toward some means callousness toward others"]
+
:*Henrich C4 – “The Gods are Watching. Behave!” (123-152; 29) – Dictator game, “god-priming” research, moralizing gods, Big Gods and the random allocation game, hell, free will, and moral universalism.
  
−
===Introduction to Justified Partiality Unit===
+
===In-Class===
  
−
:*A typical question for thinking about social justice is, '''"What do I owe strangers?"'''. We've mentioned the social contract, or even the constitution, as a place where this set of values (expectations) is realized, but there are some other avenues to justice that we explore in this unit.
+
:*Talking about Religion in a Naturalist Context.
 +
:*Designing a Religion with Cultural Evolution in Mind.
  
−
:*Some concepts:
+
===Talking about Religion in a Naturalist Context - Some caveats===
−
::*You owe strangers a '''duty of justice''' - something they can make a claim upon you for - (Examples) or
 
−
::*You can also owe someone a '''duty of interpersonal fairness/justice''' - you can't take me to court for not showing this sort of fairness or just treatment, but if you are on board with impersonal honesty, impersonal trust, and pro-sociality, you probably accept this duty at some level.  (Examples)
 
  
−
:*You can think of our approach in this unit as an indirect way of addressing the question of these two sorts of justice duties by starting with a different question:
+
:*Naturalism and the Supernatural
  
−
::*'''"What are the limits (if any) of partiality to family, intimates, friends?" (Your preference network)'''
+
:*Methodological principle - “Whatever else might be true…”
−
::*'''Personal Partiality''' - the legitimate preferences and treatment we show to friends, family, and intimates. 
 
  
−
:*Today's class is focused on "personal partiality," the kind that shows up in our interpersonal social relationships.  The next class will focus on '''"impersonal altruism"''', which shows up in our commitments, if any, to benefit strangers, especially strangers in our society, but in some cases, globally.  
+
:*The beauty and importance of faith commitments.
  
−
:*Three big questions:
+
:*Belief in supernatural beings is on the decline.  In light of the real work religious culture has done for humans (acc to cultural evolutionists), this is a critical problem. 
−
::*1. What are some the social functions of '''personal preferential treatment'''? (Draw in material from podcast)
 
−
::*2. Could our networks of preferential treatment be the effect of and also promote injustice?
 
−
::*3. What principles or considerations might lead to you recognize a '''duty of interpersonal justice'''? (that is, should you direct some resources (time, money, in-kind aid) outside your preference network? (We need additional resources for Question #3)
 
  
−
===Hidden Brain, "Playing Favorites"===
+
==== Henrich C4 – “The Gods are Watching. Behave!” ====
  
−
:*Intro
+
:*'''Major explanatory model for evolution of religious culture''' (128-133):
−
::*Expectations for unique attention from one's beloved. We'd rather an inferior unique message than a message shared with others.  '''We want partiality'''. (Think about cases in which someone shows you a simple preference -- offering to pay for coffee, give you a ride somewhere, just showing you attention.  It's wonderful!)  
+
::*Three forces may help explain the evolution of belief in supernatural beliefs:
−
::*How does partiality fit with a desire for justice as equal treatment?  Can partiality cause injustice?
 
  
−
:*'''Segment 1: Carla's Story'''
+
:::*1 - the power of cultural learning over personal experience (cf. Churchland and Tomasello). Likely adaptive - humans who could take on cultural norms outcompeted others.
−
::*Discrimination research: IAT - Implicit Association Test - Mahzarin Banaji (Harvard) one of the researchers on IAT.
 
−
::*Mahzarin Banaji and Professor Carla Kaplan (Yale English at time of story). Also a quilter. Friends in the 80s, among the few women at Yale.  Story of injury to Carla.  She gets preferential treatment because she is a professor, rather than because she was a quilter. Class based.
 
−
::*Is it discrimination if you are given a preference? [Imagine a system of preferences given to those we know. Could such a system support systemic injustice?]  Someone decides to show you "special kindness" -- above and beyond the ordinary. Language of discrimination based on "commission".  But what about omission?  Hard to know if you didn't get preferential treatment.  Yikes!  Carla got to see both what it was like to be treated same and different. 
 
−
::*Most injustices of "omission" are invisible.
 
−
 
−
::*Story by Mahzarin about interview from former student journalist from magazine the professor didn't respect.  Suddenly, the in-group information about being a Yaley was enough to trigger a preference.  Preference networks in Ivy leagues schools.  But also Gonzaga!!! We actively cultivate a preferential network for you!  Because we care about you!
 
−
::*"Helping those with whom you have a group identity" is a form of modern discrimination, acc to Mahzarin.
 
−
::*Interesting feature of favoritism -- You often don't find out that you didn't get preferential treatment.
 
−
::*'''Favoritism doesn't get as much attention as discrimination.'''
 
  
−
::*Can you avoid favoritism?  
+
:::*2 - some of our cognitive capacities - e.g. “mentalizing abilities” facilitated belief in the supernatural. Cognitive traits like empathy favor religious belief among women and ethnicities with high empathy, big brains can imagine non-existent objects (like theoretical objects and alternative futures) - bias toward dualism, mind / body. Culture on mind/body switches 130.
−
::*Could be based on "green beard effect" same school, etc.  
 
  
−
:*'''Segment 2: Dillon the Altruist''' 16:00 minutes.
+
:::*3 - intergroup competition helps explain specific difference among religions and the emergence on “moralizing Gods” (Big God religions). Big God religions out competed Local God religions.
−
::*What would it be like to try to overcome favoritism.
+
:::*Credibility Enhancing Displays (CREDs) play a role in enhancing religious commitment. (E.g. martyrdom) “costly and hard to fake commitments”.  
−
::*Story of Dillon Matthews. Tries to avoid favoritism. Middle school story. Utilitarian primer: Singer's argument about helping others in need.  Thought experiment: Saving a child from a pond ruins your suit.  Utilitarian altruism. 
 
−
::*''Singer's Principle'': If you can do good without giving up something of equal moral significance, you should do it. 
 
−
::*"Give Well" - documented charity work. (One of many sources that can assure you that your money did something good. Other examples: Jimmy Carter's mission, Gates' missions.  If you had contributed to such a cause, you would have been effective.)
 
−
::*Hannah’s model:  Value the person in front of you. Then move out to others.  Courtship with Dillon involves debate over these two approaches:  Partiality justified vs not justified. Debating moral philosophy on a first date! Wow! It doesn't get any better than that.
 
−
::*'''Effective altruism movement'''. The most good you can do. Evidence based altruism.  Vs. Hannah: Focused on family, friends, your neighborhood, city.  Parental lesson.  Dinner together. 
 
−
::*Utilitarian logic.  Equal happiness principle.  Dillon not focused on preference to people near him, but on effectiveness of altruism. (Feel the rationality, and maybe the unnaturalness of this.)  
 
−
::*Dillon donates a kidney to a stranger. Hmm. Not giving his kidney felt like hoarding something. Hannah felt her beloved was taking an unnecessary risk.  "Being a stranger" made a difference to her. Audio of Dillon’s recovery. Hmm.  Dillon honored by Kidney Association. 
 
−
::*The Trolley Problem again, this time from Joshua Greene himself!!  Watch "The Good Place". 
 
−
::*What if the person you had to sacrifice was someone you loved, your child.  Dillon might do it. Dillion would do it.  "They are all the heroes of their own stories..." Dillon would sacrifice Hannah.  Hannah might sacrifice Dillion just know that's what he would want that, but no.  She wouldn't. Dillion jokes that he might kill himself after killing his child. 
 
−
::*Greene: She recognizes that what he would do is rational.  He's willing to override it, but he might not be able to live with himself for doing that.  (Elephant and rider.)
 
  
−
:*'''Segment 3: Neurobiology of Preference'''. 33:15 minutes.
+
:*'''Big God v Local God religions'''
−
::*Naturalness of preference.  Evolutionary background: Preference promotes cooperation. Suite of capacities.  A package.  Don't lie, cheat, steal...
+
::*Local God religions (131) hunter gatherer gods are partially human, not always moral, not Omni-
−
::*”Morality is fundamentally about cooperation” (Greene):  Kin cooperation....Cooperation among friends... reciprocity...semi-strangers (same religion. friend of kin. friend of friend of kin.  Friends! 
+
::*Big God religions - Gods have concerns about human behavior and punish immoral behavior, surveil us, omni-potent, omni-present.  More likely in pastoralist and agricultural societies.
−
::*Moral concentric circles.  How big is my "Us"?  What is the range of humans I care about and to what degree?
 
−
::*Greene's analogy of automatic and manual camera modes.  (Two systems. Automatic (elephant) and Deliberate (rider).)  Difficult decisions might require '''manual mode'''. 
 
−
::*Manual mode: dlPFC (activated in utilitarian thought) (high cog load).  Automatic -- amygdala.  Snakes in the grass. Thank your amygdala.  Point: We need both systems.  We need lying, cheating, and stealing to be pretty automatic NOs!
 
−
::*List: Easy calls: sharing concert tickets with a friend.  Buying dinner for an intimate partner. Giving a more valuable gift to one person than another. Harder: Figuring out whether to donate money to help people far away.  How much?
 
−
::*'''Crying baby scenario'''.  Inevitable outcomes seem to matter here.  Brain wrestles, as in experience. vmPFC (evaluates/weighs) 
 
−
::*Lack of Tribal identity might tilt us toward rule based ethics. Equal treatment. Automatic systems not designed for a world that could help strangers 10,000 miles away.
 
−
::*Loyalty cases: men placing loyalty to men above other virtues.  Assumptions about family relationship. Do families sometime impose on your loyalty (can be disfunctional)? [Recent example of the Jan 6 insurrectionist who threatened his family not to rat him out.  They did.]  The "worth being loyal to" part is sometimes unexamined. [recall the passenger dilemma]
 
−
::*Example: Spending lots of money on a birthday party. 
 
−
::*Back to Dillon: Acknowledges limits.  Liver story.  Bits of liver.  It grows back. Partners not so much.
 
−
::*Mazarin’s story about giving to alleviate Japanese disaster.  We can retriever.
 
−
::*— Giving Well — you really can save lives.
 
−
::*Closing point by Joshua Greene.  If you ran into a burning building and saved someone, it would be a highpoint of your life. Why not consider the same outcome heroic even if it doesn't involve a burning building?
 
  
−
===Small Group Discussion: How big is your "us"?===
+
:*'''Major theses supported by evidence in this chapter''':
 +
::*Religions vary in the types of gods they believe in.  Local god religions v Big God religions, but also note change over time within a religion: OT God v NT God
 +
::*The wide range of religious belief (from Local Gods to Big Gods) have diverse effects on fitness. 
 +
::*Big God religions support large cities.
 +
::*Big God religions improve prosocial norm compliance, impersonal fairness, and other cooperative social behaviors.
 +
::*Big God religions support more impartiality to distant co-religionist distant strangers. 137
 +
::*Gods typically want certain things that are also fitness enhancing.  133
 +
::*Local God religions may still promote food sharing and pro sociality in smaller groups.
 +
::*The Big God religions of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and (later) Islam all support beliefs in contingent afterlives, free will, and moral universalism.  (Note relevance for our last unit.)
  
−
:*Before we start adding more theory, let's process some of the moral challenges in the podcast:
+
:*'''Evidence for these theses.'''
−
::*1. Interpersonal preferences (Carla hand surgery story).  Does this story exemplify a problem of doing justice? Is there a potential for systematic injustice from omissions?
+
 
−
::*2. Dillon and Hannah -- Which do you tilt toward?  Would you be ok with Dillon's altruism? Would you draw the line at the liver? Imagine you are in an intimate relationship and raising a family.  You make a median US income of about $70,000.  Your partner wants to give away 10%, 15%, 20% of your family income.  Where do you draw that line?
+
:*God primes — 123: test subjects primed with religious terms give more in the Dictator Game (impersonal fairness).  But these effects only work for religious folks and toward religious benefactors.
 +
:*Secular primes might be equally powerful and work for both believers and non-believers. 125
 +
:*God primes in everyday life - Muslim call to prayer, porn consumption.
 +
 
 +
:*In the evolution of religion toward Big God religions, we find God caring about many of the things that affect cooperation and group cohesiveness:  Adultery (and paternity), norm compliance (through monitoring and punishment).  Suggests connection with evolution.
 +
 
 +
*Study to test claims about cooperative power of Big God religions 134. Henrich & others created a measure of relative God-size and then found test subject across this spectrum. Test subjects allocated coins to either an anonymous co-religionist in distant village or either themselves (Self game) or a local co-religionist (Local Coreligionist game).  Result: ''When people believed their God would punish bad behavior they were less biased against distant co-religionists''. Similar results using Dictator game. 
 +
 
 +
:*Study to assess claims about Big God religions and scaling up of societies in large cities with complex dependencies (cooperation).  141. Watts et al used data from pre-Western contact societies (and their gods) to estimate probability of scaling up.  Close to zero prob for societies with non-punishing gods. 40% with.  
 +
 
 +
:*Evidence on belief in: 147-148
 +
::*Contingent afterlife - >economic prosperity and <crime. Belief in heaven but not hell doesn’t help.
 +
::*Free Will - <less likely to cheat on math test. Read at 148.
 +
 
 +
===Designing (or Redesigning) religion for the 21st century===
 +
 
 +
:*Cultural evolution of religion suggests that religions played (and may still play) a big role helping cultures meet evolutionary challenges that depend upon values (cooperation, norm compliance, impersonal prosociality, impersonal honesty, trust, etc.)
 +
 
 +
:*But religious belief is on the decline.  Also, many of the positive effects from religion only extend to co-religionists (sectarianism).  This wasn’t a problem when societies were religiously homogeneous, but they aren’t now.  Add to this: we have new cooperative challenges like climate change and global resource use
 +
 
 +
:*What is the future of Big God religions?  Do we still need punishing gods?  How have religions already changed in the last few millennia?  (OT —> NT gods, de-emphasis on Hell, etc.).  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudato_si' Laudato Si!]
 +
 
 +
:*Questions:
 +
::*Should we be thinking about a new direction for religions, perhaps toward ecumenism or syncretism, or should we be looking beyond religion for other beliefs that would help us “scale up” cooperation? Is there a way around the groupishness of religion? Could a secular or humanistic commitment to human dignity and universalism motivate people today?

Latest revision as of 20:20, 4 April 2024

22: APR 4.

Assigned

  • Henrich C4 – “The Gods are Watching. Behave!” (123-152; 29) – Dictator game, “god-priming” research, moralizing gods, Big Gods and the random allocation game, hell, free will, and moral universalism.

In-Class

  • Talking about Religion in a Naturalist Context.
  • Designing a Religion with Cultural Evolution in Mind.

Talking about Religion in a Naturalist Context - Some caveats

  • Naturalism and the Supernatural
  • Methodological principle - “Whatever else might be true…”
  • The beauty and importance of faith commitments.
  • Belief in supernatural beings is on the decline. In light of the real work religious culture has done for humans (acc to cultural evolutionists), this is a critical problem.

Henrich C4 – “The Gods are Watching. Behave!”

  • Major explanatory model for evolution of religious culture (128-133):
  • Three forces may help explain the evolution of belief in supernatural beliefs:
  • 1 - the power of cultural learning over personal experience (cf. Churchland and Tomasello). Likely adaptive - humans who could take on cultural norms outcompeted others.
  • 2 - some of our cognitive capacities - e.g. “mentalizing abilities” facilitated belief in the supernatural. Cognitive traits like empathy favor religious belief among women and ethnicities with high empathy, big brains can imagine non-existent objects (like theoretical objects and alternative futures) - bias toward dualism, mind / body. Culture on mind/body switches 130.
  • 3 - intergroup competition helps explain specific difference among religions and the emergence on “moralizing Gods” (Big God religions). Big God religions out competed Local God religions.
  • Credibility Enhancing Displays (CREDs) play a role in enhancing religious commitment. (E.g. martyrdom) “costly and hard to fake commitments”.
  • Big God v Local God religions
  • Local God religions (131) hunter gatherer gods are partially human, not always moral, not Omni-
  • Big God religions - Gods have concerns about human behavior and punish immoral behavior, surveil us, omni-potent, omni-present. More likely in pastoralist and agricultural societies.
  • Major theses supported by evidence in this chapter:
  • Religions vary in the types of gods they believe in. Local god religions v Big God religions, but also note change over time within a religion: OT God v NT God
  • The wide range of religious belief (from Local Gods to Big Gods) have diverse effects on fitness.
  • Big God religions support large cities.
  • Big God religions improve prosocial norm compliance, impersonal fairness, and other cooperative social behaviors.
  • Big God religions support more impartiality to distant co-religionist distant strangers. 137
  • Gods typically want certain things that are also fitness enhancing. 133
  • Local God religions may still promote food sharing and pro sociality in smaller groups.
  • The Big God religions of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and (later) Islam all support beliefs in contingent afterlives, free will, and moral universalism. (Note relevance for our last unit.)
  • Evidence for these theses.
  • God primes — 123: test subjects primed with religious terms give more in the Dictator Game (impersonal fairness). But these effects only work for religious folks and toward religious benefactors.
  • Secular primes might be equally powerful and work for both believers and non-believers. 125
  • God primes in everyday life - Muslim call to prayer, porn consumption.
  • In the evolution of religion toward Big God religions, we find God caring about many of the things that affect cooperation and group cohesiveness: Adultery (and paternity), norm compliance (through monitoring and punishment). Suggests connection with evolution.
  • Study to test claims about cooperative power of Big God religions 134. Henrich & others created a measure of relative God-size and then found test subject across this spectrum. Test subjects allocated coins to either an anonymous co-religionist in distant village or either themselves (Self game) or a local co-religionist (Local Coreligionist game). Result: When people believed their God would punish bad behavior they were less biased against distant co-religionists. Similar results using Dictator game.
  • Study to assess claims about Big God religions and scaling up of societies in large cities with complex dependencies (cooperation). 141. Watts et al used data from pre-Western contact societies (and their gods) to estimate probability of scaling up. Close to zero prob for societies with non-punishing gods. 40% with.
  • Evidence on belief in: 147-148
  • Contingent afterlife - >economic prosperity and <crime. Belief in heaven but not hell doesn’t help.
  • Free Will - <less likely to cheat on math test. Read at 148.

Designing (or Redesigning) religion for the 21st century

  • Cultural evolution of religion suggests that religions played (and may still play) a big role helping cultures meet evolutionary challenges that depend upon values (cooperation, norm compliance, impersonal prosociality, impersonal honesty, trust, etc.)
  • But religious belief is on the decline. Also, many of the positive effects from religion only extend to co-religionists (sectarianism). This wasn’t a problem when societies were religiously homogeneous, but they aren’t now. Add to this: we have new cooperative challenges like climate change and global resource use
  • What is the future of Big God religions? Do we still need punishing gods? How have religions already changed in the last few millennia? (OT —> NT gods, de-emphasis on Hell, etc.). Laudato Si!
  • Questions:
  • Should we be thinking about a new direction for religions, perhaps toward ecumenism or syncretism, or should we be looking beyond religion for other beliefs that would help us “scale up” cooperation? Is there a way around the groupishness of religion? Could a secular or humanistic commitment to human dignity and universalism motivate people today?
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=APR_4&oldid=28122"