Ethics Final Study Guide

Hey team. 72 Questions total as of now which isn't including the study questions that Dr. Alfino hasn't put up from today. There are 31 of us on the e-mail list I have..If everyone could pick two that would be fantastic. If someone is feeling generous and wants to fill in 3 I think that everyone would appreciate it. Fill in the question but also try to put page numbers as to where you found your information.

There is also a group meeting Monday night in LoCro at 8:00pm. We can go over questions that we want to ask him there.

JANUARY 16 What were Ariely's findings on honesty?

Ariely performed an experiment to see under what social circumstances cheating occurs. He had people try to solve matrices, then report how many they had been able to solve. He found a few conditions. With the shredder condition, people were more likely to cheat, with the payment condition, a higher reward made it less likely for cheating to occur, with the probability of getting caught condition, no correlation was found, due to different experiments and conditions, with the distance of payment condition, there were more cheaters, with the presence of a cheater condition, there were also more cheaters.

What is the possible significance of his research for understanding the nature of ethics? Ariely's research shows that our ethics can be influenced by other people. It poses the question, "Is ethics relative to social environment?" It forces us to consider if ethics is social before it is individual.

JAN 21 How do we use metaphors to think about the psyche, soul, and human identity?

Plato gave us the metaphor or the charioteer and the horses: his metaphor of the soul. In the metaphor, the charioteer is in control of the horses. It represents our reason, because it is a self-conscious individual. In contrast, the horses represent our desires/emotions. Haidt disagrees and presents of a metaphor to describe our divided minds. The elephant is the unconscious (our emotions), while the rider is the rational, self conscious. But the elephant is the one in control, unlike in Plato's metaphor.

What organic features of consciousness does Haidt think we need to consider when doing ethics? How might they be useful?

What picture of the mind does Haidt leave us with?

Haidt leaves us with the picture of a divided mind. He tells us that, "The mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider's job is to serve the elephant." The rider represents controlled processes, like reasoning, while the elephant represents automatic processes, like emotions.

What is the the significance of defining ethics in terms of settling value conflict?

What, if anything, does the Zimbardo Experiment tell us about the nature of ethics? Ethics can be corrupted by power. Ethical problems can be triggered by our environment, how we value others, roles in society (as in the Zim exp) etc.

JAN 23 Describe Haidt's research on disgust. What is its possible significance for understanding the nature of ethics.

What is Haidt's criticism of developmental psychology's past approach to understanding the nature of ethics?

Why does Haidt think that Turiel's and Schweder's research represent an improvement over the nature/nuture debate?

JAN 28 Present and evaluate Piaget's and Kohlberg's theories of development.

Piaget: Children's cognitive abilities need to mature with time, in orderly stages. Their understanding of morality isn't entirely innate, but isn't entirely learned either. It is a reconciliation of nature and nurture. Good moral reasoning is the end point of development.

Kohlberg: He gave children moral dilemmas, and evaluated the reasoning behind their responses. Concluded that there are stages of moral judgment (pre-conventional: judging physical world by superficial features, vs. conventional: they can understand rule and social convention manipulation, vs. post-conventional: value honesty etc., but may justify dishonesty in pursuit of a higher good).

What is the problem of relativism (include forms of relativism and subjectivism) and what is Singer's argument against them?

What kinds of reason-giving "count" as ethical for Singer?

JAN 30 How does Aristotle frame (structure and establish conditions for arguments) the discussion of happiness and the good life?

How does Aristotle evaluate various candidate answers for the good life?

What is Aristotle's view of the nature of the soul and why is that important for understanding the good life?

FEB 4 How does Haidt criticize philosophers on the topic of the relationship between reason and emotion? They put too much emphasis on reason, and distrust the emotion. He calls it "worshiping reason and distrusting passions: the rationalist delusion" on pg 34. Bound by this similar mentality, they are blinded.

How do evolutionary psychologists help us see the elephant talking? (And what does that even mean?)

A few examples show us that the elephant does indeed talk at times, and over-rule the rider (reason). The roach juice example involved dipping a sterilized roach in some apple juice and seeing if people would still take a sip of it. In the soul selling example, people were asked to sign a slip of paper, selling their souls for $2 (but they could rip it up after). 27 percent of people signed the slip, and 37 percent were willing to sip the juice. For the majority of people who refused, they couldn't explain why they were adverse to the behavior. They simply felt uncomfortable or disgusted by the notion, and didn't want to do it. In these cases, the elephant is determining the behavior, and telling the individual what to do.

What is the social intuitionist model of moral judgement? (Start comparing to other theories, like virtue ethics.)

FEB 6 Do we have an inner lawyer?

Does it operate the way Haidt thinks?

How do you get the elephant to listen?

FEB 11 What is virtue, according to Aristotle? According to Aristotle, virtue is the "Golden Mean" or a mean between two extremes of emotion. A classic example of this is courage. If you have too much courage you behave with rashness. If you have too little courage you behave as a coward.

How do we know when we are achieving it? (1) Know they are behaving in the right way (2) Choose to behave in the right way for the sake of being virtuous (3) Behavior Manifests itself as part of a fixed virtuous disposition

What is involved in deliberate choice for Aristotle? For Aristotle, a deliberate choice must be totally voluntary. This means that there must be NO pressure or compulsion and they have full knowledge of what the effects of their choice. It should also be noted that Aristotle points out that circumstances can influence our preferences

FEB 13 What evidence does Haidt provide for the claim that we are constantly concerned with our status and that we tend to conserve our views even at the expense of good reasoning?

How does Haidt think this evidence ought to influence our view of politics?

Compare Haidt's view of social deliberation with Aristotle's view of deliberate choice.

FEB 18 What is Veneer Theory? Who believes it and why?

Veneer Theory is the theory that at our core, we are bad, but we have this thin layer of goodness around the bad core created just by culture to hide the brutish part of ourselves. At the core we are supposedly selfish, we just want to advance our genes into the next generation. Surrounding this core, we have a thin layer of morality formed by culture and our surrounding environment. Thomas Henry Huxley, Sigmund Freud, and Wright think along these lines. Huxley thinks man is only moral when we are able to overcome our selfish inner desires that are innately found inside us. Freud believes civilization results from our renunciation of our instincts and our gaining of control over the forces of nature, and building of a superego. Wright claims that virtue is absent from people's hearts and minds and that we are potentially moral, but not naturally.

How does our "sociality" bear on the question of whether morality evolved from nature?

What evidence do Darwin, Smith, and Westermark cite for the naturalness of moral values?

FEB 20 What is empathy? What is sympathy?

Empathy: The condition of experiencing another's emotions...When our emotions effect others' emotions... It is a more complex form of emotion.

Sympathy: Specific response to someone's pain etc. Involves an expression of emotion in response to their emotions

Distinguish relatively simple forms of empathy from more complex ones using examples from de Waal.

What are some of the apparent prerequisites for cognitive empathy?

FEB 25 Present and assess the evidence on monkey fairness.

- The experiment with Capuchin monkeys: (De Waal 44-49). The capuchin monkeys were broken up into pairs where one monkey would be the subject and the other would be the one to receive rewards. The first test was an equity test (a control where both monkeys received food of the same value; they took the food). The second test was an inequity test (one monkey received a better reward than the subject and the subject responded by refusing to barter and rejected the lesser valued reward). The third test was the effort control test (one monkey got the better reward for free and the subject monkey hated this and practically rejected bartering and receiving any reward). The fourth test was the food control test (which showed that the subject monkey was not drawn to the more valuable food item for what it was, but actually because the conspecific received the better food item and he/she didn't).

- What it shows: animals other than humans recognize fairness between individuals. However, the monkey fairness was more egocentric because had it been a full sense of fairness (even a moral sense), the monkey that received more for no legitimate reason would have given some of his/her share to the less fortunate monkey. They had an expectation for how they should be treated individually, while other species do not have the same expectation. De Waal posits that full-blown fairness starts somewhere, and that is with the egocentric idea of fairness.

- This test also brings up the point that these monkeys might be driven by social emotions, like humans, whereas other primates are not.

What is de Waal's meta-ethical theory? (49-58)

He believes morality is a "logical outgrowth of cooperative tendencies" (55), that human morality is "evolutionarily anchored in mammalian sociality" (56). De Waal believes that human morality is an evolved thing. He says that loyalty of individuals started out with themselves and their immediate families (kin), and then with integration to more people, it evolved to cooperation with other individuals. He says human morality underwent a big step going from interpersonal relations to a focus on the greater good (54). He says our empathy and our social instincts come from our evolution--we are moral because of our evolution. When we are young we have simple emotions that show a simple form of morality, and we just refine them as we get older; emotions, most importantly empathy, are the foundations for our human morality.

FEB 27

Why isn't Korsgaard impressed with Veneer Theory?

It is not coherent: views morality as constraint of self-interest maximization. We're not entirely self interested. It is not coherent for social animals as complex as us. Morality is not a constraint of self interests, but is a way of life.

How does she argue against de Waal's gradualism (or continuity thesis)?

There is a big discontinuity between primate and human morality. There are levels of intentionality. De Waal doesn't appreciate this intentionality. There are different levels or meanings of purpose or intention. 1) Since we have functional organization, we have purpose. 2) Animal movements have purpose, but they are not "before the mind." 3)Animals can have purposes "before the mind," and can entertain thoughts. 4) Justification: Is wanting something a good enough reason for doing something?

How might Haidt respond? Morality based on emotions is still there and important, and it works. Reason is relevant.

MAR 4

What is Singer's view of Veneer Theory and de Waal's relationship to it?

De Waal is too dismissive of Verneer Theory. While the root of ethics is in social/evolved nature, not all ethics is derived from it. De Waal thinks (the groupish aspect of) morality is fragile, and so do Verneer theorists.

How does Singer argue against gradualism? Is he successful? What view does that lead us to?

MAR 18 1. What is WEIRD morality and what use does Haidt make of it?

WEIRD morality is the morality of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic cultures

2. Should we all try to be WEIRD about our morality?

3. What does Haidt mean by saying "the righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors"? What evolutionary account does he offer for this claim?

He means that we have six foundations that we base our morals on (I.E Care/harm, Fairness/Cheating).

4. What is Haidt's critique of philosophical ethics? MAR 20

What does it mean to say that culture creates its own "triggers" for our evolved psychology? To what extent can these diverge from the original triggers?

Describe each moral foundation, including the speculative or theoretical claims advances for its reality.

Care/Harm -- ev.story of asymmetry m/f, attachment theory. current triggers.

Fairness/Cheating -- Trivers and reciprocal altruism. "tit for tat" ; equality vs. proportionality

Loyalty/Betrayal -- tribalism. liberals experience low emphasis here.

Authority/Subversion -- hierarchy in animal and human society; liberals experience this differently also.

Sanctity/Degradation -- Miewes-Brandes horror. Mill. ev.story: omnivores challenge is to spot foul food and disease (pathogens, parasites). (Being an omnivore is messy. One should not be surprised to find that vegetarians often appreciate the cleanliness of their diet.) neophilia and neophobia. Images of chastity in religion and public debate. understanding culture wars.

How do conservatives and liberals participate differently in each of the moral foundations?

Liberals are more about Care/Harm and Liberty/Oppression. Conservatives are more balanced/concerned about all of them.

Does Haidt's theory of "Moral Foundations" explain key aspects of our moral and political experience?

Yes, it helps show that our personalities are closely affected by these moral foundations, which affects our political experience. Say if one were conservative, and the person that wants your vote was viewed a traitor due to one thing he did that conservatives wouldn’t like. Then it may be more than likely that conservatives might not vote for him due to that betrayal, which affects the Loyalty/Betrayal Foundation.

MAR 25

Describe the relevance of the Moral Foundations research conducted by Haidt and Graham.

Can be relevant to figure out what appeals most to people with their morals. i.e. Democrats care more for the Care/harm foundation than conservatives.

What is the difference between a Millian and Durkheimian society and how does it relate to MF?

What is the Liberty/Oppression foundation and what is the basis for distinguishing it as a sixth foundation?

It’s whether or not my freedoms are being taken away from those who would oppress. Think of the example of the apes taking down a bully/tyrant, since he is trying to take over basically.

How do Public Goods games help us think about the Moral Foundations?

Public Goods games help us think about the Moral Foundation by seeing how humans cooperate a lot more when punishment is involved. This can be seen as the Fairness/Cheating foundation same with loyalty/betrayal.

How do Libertarians approach justice?

They don’t like the idea of being forced to help others, rather helping others should be a private charity, not forced on them by like let’s say the Government. Also they would be against modern slavery, since they are very concerned about their time/labor. They are very concerned about owning one’s self.

MAR 27

Develop a succinct summary of the main approaches and problem utilitarian theory takes on both as an ethical theory and a theory of justice. What is the basis for Mill's defense of liberty. Is it consistent for him to make this defense as a utilitarian?

Mill says that our liberty can only be restrained by the State only if one’s actions will harm others. He doesn’t care what people do with themselves, that’s their choice. They shouldn’t be interfered with, it’s their liberty to choose to smoke, drink, etc. The defense of liberty for Mill is based on a claim that liberty does promote human happiness. Aka this is based on utilitarian ground therefore it is consistent for him to defend it this way.

Can we distinguish higher and lower pleasures. Should society invest more in higher pleasures?

APR 1

How does Kant think about the value of reason in us and it's implications for freedom and responsibility toward others?

Reason is highly valued in us and for freedom. In terms of choice, if you choose what you are inclined to, it’s not really a free choice. Reason is valuable because it gives us an area of positive freedom (free to, do things). But you have a responsibility to do the right thing toward others, free from inclinations, aka your duty. You have a duty to respect others as rational beings.

What is the categorical imperative, why does it have to be categorical to have moral value, and what does it direct us to do or not do?

The categorical imperative is, universalize your maxim(Kant means a rule or principle that gives reason for your action) and treat people as ends(not means). It has to be categorical to have moral value because you are obligated to do it, as an end not a means. It directs us to not use people as means, they are ends.

APR 3 What is the theoretical basis for choosing principles from behind a "veil of ignorance"?

The theoretical basis for choosing principles from behind a “veil of ignorance” is to be ignorant about where you would be in the society if you happen to be reborn in it: wealth, age, race, how society treats minority, if you’ll be smart, or lucky, good health, etc. You do know human psychology and about capitalism. So if we were to be born into this world, it would be good to decide on the principles of Justice now with the veil because you won’t be basis due to whatever you are above(wealth, race, etc). It neutralizes inequalities.

What makes a contract fair? How does particular cases test the fairness of a contract?

A contract is fair depends on the circumstances of execution. The fairness of a contract isn’t determined by the exchange of goods and money. Particular cases test the fairness of a contract is, parties can have different power/knowledge status. They could be a little unfair if you are coerced into it.

Explain the rationale behind the difference principle and offer an assessment of it.

The difference principle is that the differences of the equality have to work to the advantage of the least well off.

APR 8

Are we at a point in history where our political and moral values will need to adjust to a different horizon than the nation state?

Yes, we’ll have to spread it to the whole world, rather than just our own group. It will be maladaptive if we ignore those outside our own country.

How would competing moral theories assess our obligations to those in absolute poverty or engaged in slave or forced labor?

Libertarian: Would take the approach that it’s a matter of private charity. As long as government is involved Util: Wouldn’t care if it was private of public, wants to prevent the suffering, all suffering is equal, so whatever makes people happy, all human suffering is equally bad Rawlsism: Expand the whole group to the whole world with the “veil of ignorance” and have justice produced this way. It’s a matter of what it would be rational it would be to agree to, not knowing who you will be in the world, whether in the US or Africa.

APR 10

What are the primary arguments of social justice in the climate change issue?

The primary arguments of social justice is, who does it affect. It mostly affects those in poorer countries, where their crops and the land they live on could be affected by the climate change leaving them to be worse off. Another argument is that all of us could change this by lessening how much emission we give off, if we all do it, it would help. Wealth nations have a responsibility because they benefitted from changing the climate.

What considerations go into a "fair distribution" of burdens on climate change?

Considerations such as, some countries will let off way more emissions and can only lower so much so fast. So give them time to get their emissions lower(U.S.) Some countries have bigger populations yet they don’t let off that much emission, so they should haven’t to be burdened as much, they might not even have to change what they are doing. So we have to consider the % of population to the % of emission is giving off, and base it off that.

What are some approaches to addressing climate change and how do they vary in relation to diverse views of justice?

They suggest that there should be a % max of emissions that a country can give out. So if one had excess % to give off, they can sell it to other countries that can’t meet lower their % max. For example the U.S. would have trouble but they could buy emissions trading from Russia, who will have excess % of emissions that they don’t need. This will help the poorer countries who will have excess % emissions to sell. So it gives the rich countries to want something valuable from the poorer countries.

APR 17

How does an account of our "groupishness" provide a more complete picture of our moral life?

It shows that the complete picture of a moral life requires groupishness along with selfish morals. It completes the moral life as a whole. Self morals is half of the story, groupishness is the rest of it. Groupishness is evidence that group selection helps account for cooperation and other moral values

What is the evidence for group selection of cooperation and other traits related to moral life?

Evidence for group selection that relates to moral life are, human tribes that were well organized flourished. They develop to help each other within their groups. So we see that the bigger a group is that works together, the better they do, so it eventually led to what we are today. We have a big society of humans living together that developed morals. We feel bad when we fail to cooperate with the group, since we can understand others’ intentions.

APR 22

What is Haidt's hypothesis about the "hive switch" and how does he support it?

The hive switch is like becoming a group, switching us on to becoming one. He supports it by explaining some examples, such as muscular bonding (where people are moving together, such as marching in unison). Also being submerged in the group, losing one’s self awareness. Being more concerned about the group’s purpose/service to the group. It can be activated by experience of nature as well.

Should we be trying to cultivate experiences of the hive switch in our lives? How?

Modern culture is worst off, because we decreases opportunities for the hive switch to build group identity. The hive switch is also dangerous, think of Nazis, so there is a fine line of when we can use it and when we should be wary of it. We should use it for things such as team sports, and groups that are used for recreation (such as music, or theater, etc).