Social Dilemmas and Moral Reasoning
Social dilemmas typically elicit concepts such as “cooperation” (prisoners dilemma), “fairness” (ultimatum game), and “trust” (centipede game)
These terms have moral connotations
How is dual process theory involved in moral reasoning: A clash between “intuitionist” and “rational” approaches?
Haidt's View of Moral Reasoning
Haidt contrasts the approaches of Piaget and Kohlberg with his own view of morality. What is the most important difference?
How would you characterize the Piaget/ Kohlberg approach?
Children “construct” a sense of morality
Social learning theories (e.g., Bandura) take a similar view
Contrast with the evolutionary/biological viewHaidt claims that cross-cultural studies of morality suggest that there is a fundamental conflict between individuals and society. Do you agree with Haidt's conclusions in this regard?
How would you characterize this conflict?
Two historical narratives – liberal/progressive versus community lost
Is this the essence of the liberal-conservative debate?Haidt: Moral Dumfounding
Frank’s dog was killed by a car in front of his house. Frank had heard that in China people occasionally eat dog meat, and he was curious what it tasted like. So he cut up the body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.
Was Frank’s behavior acceptable?The strength of intuitive reactions overrides deliberate, rational considerations
How does the topic of moral reasoning illustrate the conflict between reasoning and intuition?
Origins of the new perspective:
Bargh: automatic determinants of behavior
Damasio: somatic marker hypothesis
Critical role of bodily feelings and emotions in controlling behavior
DeWall: chimpanzees show the building blocks of human morality
Priming of Moral Intuitions
John Bargh has shown that subjects’ behavior can be modified by implicit primes
Example: Watching old people in a video primes aging stereotypes
Subjects move more slowly when they leave the experiment
Moral emotions are especially subject to priming
Haidt’s Social-intuitionist Model
Moral judgment is a rapid, intuitive process
Schnall, Haidt, Clore, and Jordan (2008)
Used scenarios such as Frank eating his dog
Subjects were primed by having to sit at a dirty desk
Used sensitivity to one’s own body sensations as an individual difference measure
More sensitive subjects gave harsher judgments of FrankHaidt, McCauley, & Rozin (1994) used body sensitivity measure
The measure predicts response to issues such as gay rights and abortion, but not to affirmative action
Why the difference? It depends on the degree to which the issue is driven by a sense of “disgust”Helzer & Pizarro, Psychological Science, 2011
Events that affect bodily purity can influence moral judgments.
Lab contained sign about keeping lab clean. Some subjects given a hand wipe before moral judgment task.
The individuals who were reminded of cleanliness were more likely to make harsh moral judgments, and provided politically conservative responses.The Role of Reasoning
Kohlberg’s theory sees abstract principles as the most advanced form of moral reasoning
Greene: “deontological philosophy is at its heart a post hoc justification of gut feelings about rights”
So is there any role for reasoning?
How might we test the hypothesis that reasoning is driven by intuitions?
Krebs' View of Moral Reasoning
How would you describe Krebs' account of a "sense of morality"?
An evolutionary view: Based on Darwin’s own position
Primitive social instincts, modified by language and habit
The evolutionary view raises the issue of how a moral species might maintain itself
Seen in the fundamental social dilemma, the “commons dilemma”The Commons Dilemma
“Commons” – a public grazing ground
If too many peasants graze too many cattle, the commons will be destroyed
But if just one peasant adds extra cattle, the difference will be absorbed
Generalization of the prisoners dilemma
Contemporary examples:
Ocean fishing
Contributions to public radio
Walking on the grassSelfish Genes versus Selfish People
How can social restraint evolve?
Evolution favors selfishness in genes: Selfish genes are more likely to reproduce
Individuals are selfish for other reasons: Personal gains in utility
If these two inclinations are in conflict, evolutionary selfishness will win out
Inter-individual fights are costly, and best avoided.Evolution of Pro-social Behavior
One way to avoid fights is with a dominance hierarchy
Other approaches involve mutual cooperation: Tit-for-tat mechanisms, social bonds
Perhaps sexual selection, kin selection, even group selection (controversial)The Role of Emotions in Morality
There is a strong connection between moral transgressions and the emotion of disgust
Other negative emotions may be activated by our own transgressions: guilt, shame
Positive emotions are associated with moral virtue: pride, sympathy, liking, trust
Why are emotions and morality so tightly connected?
Emotions can induce a primitive moral sensitivityEmotions and the Evolution of Morality
Note the operation of the “red queen” principle in much of the evolutionary process
Alice in Wonderland: “Running as fast as you can to stay in place”
The evolutionary arms race
There are selective pressures to get better at cheating, which produces selective pressures to get better at detecting cheatsWhat is the Role of Reasoning?
What role is there for abstract reasoning? “Adaptation trumps truth”
Is reasoning merely a Machiavellian device for promoting one’s own position?
Reasoning (system 2 processes) are flexible and adaptive to circumstances (more context-free), but still subject to the fundamental rules of evolution
Some aspects of morality might demand this form of responseEvolved Social Schemata
Fiske: An evolutionary view of moral interactions – four schemata
1. Affectionate relations among individuals sharing social bonds
2. Hierarchical relations among individuals at differing ranks
3. Egalitarian exchanges among equals
4. Exchanges sensitive to cost-benefit ratios
Increasing levels of computational complexity
Chimpanzees operate up to level 3!Implementing Moral Behavior
System 2 is more costly than system 1
Moral judgments are likely to be based on simple heuristics in preference to complex reasoning
We can expect intuition to be the driving force behind most moral judgments
Perhaps we use system 2, deliberate reasoning, when dealing with the exchange schema
System 2 may be involved when moral imperatives conflictMoral Conflict
Frank’s dog was killed by a car in front of his house. Frank had heard that in China people occasionally eat dog meat, and he was curious what it tasted like. So he cut up the body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.
Was Frank’s behavior acceptable?
Frank had been unemployed for two years. He could barely afford any kind of food, and had not eaten meat for many months. His dog was killed by a car in front of his house. Frank had heard that in China people occasionally eat dog meat, so he cut up the body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.
Was Frank’s behavior acceptable?A run-away trolley will collide with and kill five workers.
You can divert it onto a side track, in which case it will kill only one
A run-away trolley will collide with and kill five workers.
You can stop it by pushing one very heavy person off the bridgeTrolleyology: Experimental Results
In version 1 a majority of subjects give a utilitarian response
In version 2 a large majority does not
Greene et al (2001) demonstrated that in the second case there is strong activation of ventromedial prefrontal cortex – associated with emotional responses
If a utilitarian response is given to a highly charged emotional scenario, response times are longerMorality and Altruism
How is altruism related to moral reasoning?
Willingness to sacrifice oneself for others is seen as a moral virtue
Loewenstein & Small (2007) The scarecrow and the tin man
The conflict between heart and brain
A model of how two systems might interact
Several factors determine the degree to which sympathy is elicited – part of system 1 programming?Moral Reasoning
In what way do Krebs and Haidt agree in their arguments? How do they differ?
Normative versus descriptive views of decision making
Descriptive: Describe how people do make choices
Normative: Prescribe how people ought to make choices
How does the normative/descriptive distinction impact the study of moral judgment?Krebs’ presentation is strictly descriptive. What about Haidt?
Consider the role of reasoning: From a descriptive point of view, intuition may dominate reasoning
Should we therefore argue that reasoning ought to be subservient to intuition?
Beware the naturalistic fallacy: “It is natural, therefore it is good”Normative Rebukes to Reasoning
Bennis, Medin, & Bartels (2010)
Argue that holistic, rule-based decisions are superior to analytic calculation
They use the social dilemma literature as supporting evidence
Dijksterhuis: Intuitive judgments can be superior to carefully reasoned judgments
The evidence comes primarily from choices based on personal preferences (e.g., flavors)
Greene, however, still sees a role for reasoningWhat is Morality
‘‘In evolutionary theory, a moral person is simply one who pursues their ultimate genetic self-interest through psychological adaptations that embody a genuine, proximate concern for others’’ (Miller, 2007)
Does this offer a role for system 2, utilitarian reasoning?
System 2 is the product of long leash evolution, a solution to problems that evolution could not anticipate.What connections do you see between theories of moral reasoning, theories of rationality, and other topics we have studied?
All of these topics deal with the contrast between two systems of reasoning.
Are the two systems equivalent in each case?
What do the data have to say about normative or deontic prescriptions for behavior?