MAR 4

14: MAR 4. Unit Three: Two Theories of Moral and Political Difference

Today and Tuesday we hit "Rock Bottom" in the course. Here what that means in terms of philosophical method.

In Classical Greece, a model for first principles comes from math and geometry. Also, Essences.
In a Post-Scientific Revolution world, with evolution on board, the idea of essences looks different.

Rock bottom means: Hitting a limit to the inquiry, ideally getting to a basic level of understanding and explanation that makes sense of the phenomena, here, our moral behaviors and rational thought about values. That mix of intuition and reason that has evolved in our big brained species. Morality works by using the "machinery" provided by evolution to teach, pass on, and monitor moral culture and behavior (maybe the conservative side, though we all contribute to preserving culture). It also, of course, involves the criticism of current practices and proposals for new practices (maybe the liberal side, though we all contribute to criticizing culture).

What comes after "rock bottom"? The way up! Using the point of view we have developed to look at our experience in new ways.

Example of SW2. How do you locate and negotiate fairness in the context of actual differences in perception and judgement? What do my intuitions about fair contracts tell me about my own "settings" (psychological, local culture (e.g. family, home town) and deep culture (e.g. ethnicity, society, history!) (Also, see course questions 6, 7, and 8).

analogy of moral sense to taste sense. "the righteous mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors"

places where our sensitivities to underlying value perception have depth from evolution, but have flexibility or plasticity from the "big brain", which allows for shaping within culture and retriggering.
morality is rich, not reducible to one taste. A way of perceiving the world. against moral monism
like cuisines, there is variation, but within a range.

mentions Enlightenment approaches, again: argument against the reductive project of philosophical ethics 113-114. ethics more like taste than science.

Hume's three way battle: Enlightenment thinkers united in rejecting revelation as basis of morality, but divided between an transcendent view of reason as the basis (Kant) or the view that morality is part of our nature (Hume, Darwin, etc.). Hume's empiricism. also for him, morality is like taste

Autism argument: Bentham (utlitarianism), Kant (deontology). Think about the person who can push the fat guy.

Bentham told us to use arithmetic, Kant logic, to resolve moral problems. Note Bentham image and eccentric ideas. Baron-Cohen article on Bentham as having Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism range). Kant also a solitary. Just saying. clarify point of analysis. not ad hominem. part of Enlightenment philosophy's rationalism -- a retreat from observation.
the x/y axis on page 117 shows a kind of "personality space" that could be used to locate Enlightenment rationalists. (Note that Haidt is looking at the psychology of the philosopher for clues about the type of theory they might have!)

Major global religious and ethical culture identifies virtues that seem to respond to similar basic problems of social life.

Avoiding bad evolutionary theory or evolutionary psychology: "just so stories" -- range of virtues suggested "receptors", but for what? the virtue? some underlying response to a problem-type?

moral taste receptors found in history of long standing challenges and advantages of social life. The "moral foundations" in Haidt's theory just are the evolved psychological centers of evaluation that make up moral consciousness for humans.

Modularity in evolutionary psychology, centers of focus, like perceptual vs. language systems. Sperber and Hirshfield: "snake detector" - note on deception/detection in biology/nature. responses to red, Hyperactive agency detection.

See chart, p. 125: C F L A S: Care/Harm, Fairness/Cheating, Loyalty/Betrayal, Authority/Subversion, Sanctity/Degradation

Work through chart. Note how the "adaptive challenges" are some of the things we have been reading research on.

Small group discussion: Try to find examples from everyday life of events do or would trigger each of these foundations. Consider either real cases of people you know and the things they say or examples from general knowledge, or even hypothetical examples. For example:

You and your friends all worry about COVID cases, but some more than others. Might be observing the Care/Harm trigger.
You and your friends all occasionally enjoy risqué humor, but you are uncomfortable listening to people talk about intimate things like sex casually. Maybe you have a different sanctity trigger.
You hear someone talk uncharitably about someone who sees them as a good friend. You are triggered for disloyalty.

Focus on both ways that we are all triggered and ways that we are differentially triggered.