Transcript EP Haidt 1x

Chapt 1: Where Does Morality Come From
1. Re the origin of morality, what, according to Haidt, is the
difference between nativism, empiricism and rationalism? Which,
if any, of these theories does Haidt favor?
nativism (inborn)
empiricism – we learn them (thus morals vary extensively from
one culture to another)
rationalism – we construct them on the basis of our (social)
experiences, but only as the mind develops (Piaget, Kohlberg,
Turiel)
2. Note 7 (p 7) – Haidt: infants may actually react to violations of
fairness as early as 15 months (Schmidt & Sommerville 2011).
That’s our seminar paper for Thursday (I will present it, as an
example of the kind of presentation I want folks to give).
Chapt 1: Where Does Morality Come From
3. What is Kohlberg’s view of moral development? What is the
difference between the pre-conventional, conventional, and postconventional stages? How does his view relate to Piaget’s
developmental theory?
Pre-conventional: child judges moral issues by superficial features (boy was
punished, therefore he did something wrong)
Conventional: child can understand and manipulate social rules and conventions
(‘age of petty legalisms’, child still respects authority, even if they chafe)
Post-conventional: After puberty, child begins to think for himself, question
authority, sometimes justify breaking rules in the cause of some greater moral
principle, most often justice. Becoming ‘moral philosophers’ – trying to construct
coherent ethical systems for themselves.
Kohlberg: The fundamental moral concept is harm/care and it develops over time,
requiring both maturation of the individual and experiences in social interactions
(typically with peers). This is similar to Piaget’s view in that it requires both
maturation (child has to have mental capacity to develop a concept) and
experience with the relevant part of the world (social relations in this case).
Chapt 1: Where Does Morality Come From
4. What does Haidt mean when he says that American and W.
European cultures have ‘stripped down and thinned out the thick,
all-encompassing moral orders [typical of original cultures]”?
We have boiled it all down to harm/care (and perhaps fairness). As
we will see, however, this is just a segment (roughly the liberal
segment) of American culture that has done so.
5. What is the distinction Turiel makes between moral rules and
social conventions?
Turiel: Moral rules are rules related to “justice, rights, and welfare
pertaining to how people ought to related to each other”. In Haidt’s
terms, harm/care and fairness.
Moral rules are fundamental, applying in all circumstances and
societies, whereas social conventions vary from context to context
and are arbitrary, not fundamentally moral.
Chapt 1: Where Does Morality Come From
6. What is the distinction Shweder makes between individualistic
and sociocentric cultures? In his study, in what ways did individuals
in in Hyde Park, Chicago differ from those in Orissa, India?
Shweder, Mahapatra & Miller 1987 “Culture and Moral
Development”
Shweder: “all societies must resolve a small set of questions about
how to order society, the most important being how to balance
the needs of individuals and groups … seem to be just two
primary ways of answering this question – individualistic vs
sociocentric cultures – latter is much more common – “no bright
line separated moral rules (preventing harm) from social
conventions (regulating behaviors not linked directly to harm)”.
Study compared individuals who lived in Hyde Park, Chicago, and
Brahmins in a town in Orissa, India (Brahmins and untouchables).
Major difference: former individualistic, latter sociocentric
Chapt 1: Where Does Morality Come From
7. What is Turiel’s major criticism of the Shweder et al study? In
Haidt’s research, how did he deal with this criticism?
That Shweder used ‘trick’ questions – didn’t control by asking
subjects about harm (e.g., wife is hurting her husband by eating
a ‘hot’ food which could lead her into having sex) – would they
condemn actions that were harmless? Haidt used harmless taboo
violations (eating your dead dog, sex with chicken) – most involve
disgust or disrespect (but action done in private, no one harmed)
8. What were the results of Haidt’s research. Did they favor Turiel or
Shweder? What was the biggest surprise in these results.
Haidt et al: “Is it wrong to eat your dog?” – with harm removed,
still gets the same cultural differences (country and class).
Biggest surprise is that class difference within a society is bigger
than difference between societies! (Could have stayed in Philly
and done the whole expt there.)
Chapt 1: Where Does Morality Come From
9. What is ‘moral dumbfounding’?
Person rendered speechless or searching for explanations
when asked to explain verbally what they knew intuitively.
10. What does Hume mean by “reason is, and ought only to
be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any
other office than to serve and obey them”?
That reason finds the means to achieve whatever ends are
chosen by the passions (emotional intuitions).
In sum: Morality doesn’t come primarily from reasoning, but
some combination of innate reactions and social learning.
http://www.nytimes.com/video/2010/05/04/magazine/1247467772000/can-babies-tell-right-from-wrong.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBW5vdhr_PA