I'm kind of disapointed that this doesn't really reference existing philisophical ideas about morals or ethics. A lot of what the article talks about is well known in philosphy. Utilitarianism isn't very popular today as it has a lot of flaws.
This is not an article about ethical philosophy per se. The article is concerned with how people actually think when they make moral judgments, not how they should think, or what their conclusions ought to be. In particular, the article asserts that people don't think in utilitarian terms when they make moral judgments.
Besides, it's not like every paper related to ethics should contain a summary of every ethical framework you listed. It's a research paper, and its intended audience knows those things already. It's not a syllabus for a sophomore survey course on ethics.
Although this is yet another study about how human beings differ from some "rational" ideal, it doesn't conclude that we are irrational. Rather it seems to give us pause for thought about utilitarianism.
I think people are mostly right to have counter-utilitarian intuitions. Utilitarinism automatically places the the reasoner in the position of an omniscient fairy-empress how knows what is good for everyobody and can act on it.
But nobody is really in that situation. We are interacting parts in a enourmous system. We affect other people, and we adapt to the effects that others have on us.
All this works better if we obey certain rough and ready rules of right and wrong and respect each other rather vaguely defined rights. Evolution has given us a moral sense that encourages just that. It isn't perfect, but it works a lot better than pretending to be a fairy-empress.
A class on moral philosophy screwed me up for a while early in college. All the critical thinking and fancy vocabulary about the topic made me think morality was in some way real - I was all concerned about violating "moral laws." It's amazing how smart people can be so grossly deluded and incorrect about things like this.
"Am I wasting my potential?! Is this action maximizing my contribution to general welfare?! Is Famous Person better than me because he helped more people?!" Totally neurotic.
This kicked off an era of serious philosophizing, and I began to see countless contradictions and paradoxes with utilitarianism, etc.
For example, I started to see that the notion of "selfhood" was just a social invention or cognitive construct, because I reasoned that we're just perpetually changing aspects of nature, and our separateness is just opinion. So then I wondered how the hell anyone could be deserving of blame or credit if they don't actually exist, or if it was their "former self" who committed the crime, etc.
It's kind of annoying but cute to see some popular "thinkers" and writers -- fancy-smarty-pants _neuroscientists_ and _atheists_, even -- who actually think morality is real, as though there are actual objective problems out there somewhere. As though you could actually do a "bad thing" or a "good thing." That grinds my gears a little because it's very hypocritical: They'll write an entire book disparaging religious people who believe things without evidence, and they'll write another book on why, according to their pseudoscientific-philosophical horse shit, morality can be "derived from science" [vomit].
But it's easy for smart people to cling to morality as an existential anchor point when they don't have religion to fall back on. It's hard to accept that you're in free fall. But it's nice once you come around and accept reality for what it is.
What words would you use to tell your friends and family about why someone shouldn't stick a gun in your face and take anything they want?
And if the complicated and often contradictory paths through considerations of ethics are 'annoying' to you, why? Are they 'wrong' on some moral plane that 'doesn't exist?'.
Ethics, life, and why we are all here is hard stuff. But if you think there's no point, then please don't vote in the rest of our elections this fall!
>It's kind of annoying but cute to see some popular "thinkers" and writers -- fancy-smarty-pants _neuroscientists_ and _atheists_, even -- who actually think morality is real, as though there are actual objective problems out there somewhere. As though you could actually do a "bad thing" or a "good thing."
It seems that you conflate real with "made of molecules".
Things like morals are real in the sense that people agree on them.
Doesn't even have to be all people -- after all some people disagree also for concrete, made of molecules, type of stuff (e.g. a crazy person believing a tree is a demon, or a conspiracy theorist not believing in the moon landing, or a psychotic seeing spiders on his arms, etc.)
And, in that respect, it's quite easy to see that helping an old person who fell down to get up is something good, while raping children is not.
It's not even the case that people will take sides on the matter, the huge majority will agree on both those labels.
>That grinds my gears a little because it's very hypocritical: They'll write an entire book disparaging religious people who believe things without evidence, and they'll write another book on why, according to their pseudoscientific-philosophical horse shit, morality can be "derived from science" [vomit].
You do understand that both your charge against this "hypocrisy" and your disgust at "pseudo-philosophy" is based upon a moral stance, right?
Morality is "real" to the extent that we acknowledge that all humans express (or are capable of expressing) moral intuition. You can't hold the emotion of happiness or the feeling of hunger in your hand, but I would wager that you have strong intuitions about their existence as "real" things.
Utilitarianism isn't the end-all-be-all of moral philosophy. By modern standards, it isn't even particularly popular, compared to hybrid (partially deontological) theories. I think you would also be hard-pressed to find a philosopher who thinks that moral theories can be derived from science alone. Scientific knowledge is often used by philosophers to explain an intuition or support a theory, but few are likely to advocate for cannibalism because we have observed it in other species (and some remote uncontacted groups). That would be an appeal to naturalism or the mere state of things, neither of which is compelling in theories that are meant to explain how we ought to behave.
Thinking about morality as a nonabsolute lands you squarely in the land of relativism. That's a very comfortable place to be, until you meet someone who likes to burn the paws of cats for fun (to borrow Singer's analogy) and have no recourse against their unambiguously immoral behavior.
To wrap up, the goal of moral philosophy is not to "anchor" your preexisting morals and make yourself more comfortable - it is to take (all) moral principles to their logical limits, exploring inconsistencies and gaps that would be unacceptable if applied consistently.
>For example, I started to see that the notion of "selfhood" was just a social invention or cognitive construct, because I reasoned that we're just perpetually changing aspects of nature, and our separateness is just opinion. So then I wondered how the hell anyone could be deserving of blame or credit if they don't actually exist, or if it was their "former self" who committed the crime, etc.
I have a great rebuttal to that kind of nihilism-- not that you need it anymore. People get weird ideas because they subject about half of the universe to nihilism while forgetting the other half.
If everything is just meaningless matter and meat, then so are ideas like credit and blame. "Blame" is just an abstraction for a class of neural signal configurations. Someone might say that there's nothing "wrong" or "right" when it's all just bullshit atoms, but then there's also nothing "wrong" with thinking right and wrong are real.
These ideas don't need to be somehow universal truths... they just need to help physical systems of matter do the shit that physical systems of matter "want" to do.
You sound dismissive and petulant. Objective moral truths have to be real (or at least tractable if you're, e.g., a utilitarian) unless you're willing to make some very dubious concessions, such as: it's not morally and objectively wrong to hurt someone for no good reason.
Of course, some DO make such concessions (Singer being one of them), but I think that's just throwing the baby with the bath water.
The trolley problem conflates too independent issues in a very artificial set of circumstances.
Whether we are willing or required to make a utilitarian moral judgment and whether we have the right to do so.
In a real life trolley problem on the battlefield or in the hospital the commanding officer or doctor has been invested by society with his/her position and is expected to do hypothetically the best thing for his patients/soldiers. He has both the power and the right. I'm aware the military situation is a LOT murkier but lets not over complicate.
It seems to me that many are conflicted over their right to take power over other peoples lives and the expected benefit. Note how most feel that you are required to switch the trolley when nobody would be harmed on the other track. Most feel it unacceptable to take responsibility for choosing which party to die in a one to one switch but find sacrificing one for 5 at least acceptable as the benefit mounts it becomes harder to be squeamish about taking power over others.
Maybe if they analyses more realistic scenarios it might be somewhat clearer.
[+] [-] throwaway3042|9 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Criticisms
Here are some relevant keywords that I expected to see in the article, but didn't find.
Ethical intuitionism
Deontological ethics
Virtue ethics
Consequentialism
[+] [-] twblalock|9 years ago|reply
Besides, it's not like every paper related to ethics should contain a summary of every ethical framework you listed. It's a research paper, and its intended audience knows those things already. It's not a syllabus for a sophomore survey course on ethics.
[+] [-] adrianratnapala|9 years ago|reply
I think people are mostly right to have counter-utilitarian intuitions. Utilitarinism automatically places the the reasoner in the position of an omniscient fairy-empress how knows what is good for everyobody and can act on it.
But nobody is really in that situation. We are interacting parts in a enourmous system. We affect other people, and we adapt to the effects that others have on us.
All this works better if we obey certain rough and ready rules of right and wrong and respect each other rather vaguely defined rights. Evolution has given us a moral sense that encourages just that. It isn't perfect, but it works a lot better than pretending to be a fairy-empress.
[+] [-] alexvr|9 years ago|reply
"Am I wasting my potential?! Is this action maximizing my contribution to general welfare?! Is Famous Person better than me because he helped more people?!" Totally neurotic.
This kicked off an era of serious philosophizing, and I began to see countless contradictions and paradoxes with utilitarianism, etc.
For example, I started to see that the notion of "selfhood" was just a social invention or cognitive construct, because I reasoned that we're just perpetually changing aspects of nature, and our separateness is just opinion. So then I wondered how the hell anyone could be deserving of blame or credit if they don't actually exist, or if it was their "former self" who committed the crime, etc.
It's kind of annoying but cute to see some popular "thinkers" and writers -- fancy-smarty-pants _neuroscientists_ and _atheists_, even -- who actually think morality is real, as though there are actual objective problems out there somewhere. As though you could actually do a "bad thing" or a "good thing." That grinds my gears a little because it's very hypocritical: They'll write an entire book disparaging religious people who believe things without evidence, and they'll write another book on why, according to their pseudoscientific-philosophical horse shit, morality can be "derived from science" [vomit].
But it's easy for smart people to cling to morality as an existential anchor point when they don't have religion to fall back on. It's hard to accept that you're in free fall. But it's nice once you come around and accept reality for what it is.
[+] [-] lbhnact|9 years ago|reply
And if the complicated and often contradictory paths through considerations of ethics are 'annoying' to you, why? Are they 'wrong' on some moral plane that 'doesn't exist?'.
Ethics, life, and why we are all here is hard stuff. But if you think there's no point, then please don't vote in the rest of our elections this fall!
[+] [-] coldtea|9 years ago|reply
It seems that you conflate real with "made of molecules".
Things like morals are real in the sense that people agree on them.
Doesn't even have to be all people -- after all some people disagree also for concrete, made of molecules, type of stuff (e.g. a crazy person believing a tree is a demon, or a conspiracy theorist not believing in the moon landing, or a psychotic seeing spiders on his arms, etc.)
And, in that respect, it's quite easy to see that helping an old person who fell down to get up is something good, while raping children is not.
It's not even the case that people will take sides on the matter, the huge majority will agree on both those labels.
>That grinds my gears a little because it's very hypocritical: They'll write an entire book disparaging religious people who believe things without evidence, and they'll write another book on why, according to their pseudoscientific-philosophical horse shit, morality can be "derived from science" [vomit].
You do understand that both your charge against this "hypocrisy" and your disgust at "pseudo-philosophy" is based upon a moral stance, right?
[+] [-] woodruffw|9 years ago|reply
Utilitarianism isn't the end-all-be-all of moral philosophy. By modern standards, it isn't even particularly popular, compared to hybrid (partially deontological) theories. I think you would also be hard-pressed to find a philosopher who thinks that moral theories can be derived from science alone. Scientific knowledge is often used by philosophers to explain an intuition or support a theory, but few are likely to advocate for cannibalism because we have observed it in other species (and some remote uncontacted groups). That would be an appeal to naturalism or the mere state of things, neither of which is compelling in theories that are meant to explain how we ought to behave.
Thinking about morality as a nonabsolute lands you squarely in the land of relativism. That's a very comfortable place to be, until you meet someone who likes to burn the paws of cats for fun (to borrow Singer's analogy) and have no recourse against their unambiguously immoral behavior.
To wrap up, the goal of moral philosophy is not to "anchor" your preexisting morals and make yourself more comfortable - it is to take (all) moral principles to their logical limits, exploring inconsistencies and gaps that would be unacceptable if applied consistently.
[+] [-] SerLava|9 years ago|reply
I have a great rebuttal to that kind of nihilism-- not that you need it anymore. People get weird ideas because they subject about half of the universe to nihilism while forgetting the other half.
If everything is just meaningless matter and meat, then so are ideas like credit and blame. "Blame" is just an abstraction for a class of neural signal configurations. Someone might say that there's nothing "wrong" or "right" when it's all just bullshit atoms, but then there's also nothing "wrong" with thinking right and wrong are real.
These ideas don't need to be somehow universal truths... they just need to help physical systems of matter do the shit that physical systems of matter "want" to do.
[+] [-] dvt|9 years ago|reply
Of course, some DO make such concessions (Singer being one of them), but I think that's just throwing the baby with the bath water.
[+] [-] jpttsn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zorpner|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] michaelmrose|9 years ago|reply
Whether we are willing or required to make a utilitarian moral judgment and whether we have the right to do so.
In a real life trolley problem on the battlefield or in the hospital the commanding officer or doctor has been invested by society with his/her position and is expected to do hypothetically the best thing for his patients/soldiers. He has both the power and the right. I'm aware the military situation is a LOT murkier but lets not over complicate.
It seems to me that many are conflicted over their right to take power over other peoples lives and the expected benefit. Note how most feel that you are required to switch the trolley when nobody would be harmed on the other track. Most feel it unacceptable to take responsibility for choosing which party to die in a one to one switch but find sacrificing one for 5 at least acceptable as the benefit mounts it becomes harder to be squeamish about taking power over others.
Maybe if they analyses more realistic scenarios it might be somewhat clearer.