Transcript lectures25-26-moralreasoning.ver2x

Moral Reasoning 1
CLPS0020: Introduction to Cognitive
Science
Professor Dave Sobel
Fall 2016
What is Moral Reasoning
• Thinking about what’s right and wrong
• Subjective vs. Objective “right”
– If I want to go get a coffee, and I walk in the wrong direction towards
the coffeeshop, I’m mistaken, but am I amoral?
• Role of Intentions
– If I give false directions because I have a false belief, am I acting
amorally?
– If I give false directions because I intend to deceive, am I acting
amorally?
• Disposition vs. Situation
– If I give false directions because I intend to deceive, am I acting
amorally? Vs. am I amoral?
– Side note: Fundamental Attribution Error
Theories of Moral Reasoning
• Kolhberg’s Stages
– Human beings develop through a series of stages
of moral reasoning.
– Six stages (3 levels)
– Usually we don’t regress (once you get to a stage,
you don’t go back)
– Not everyone reaches the highest stage
Level 1: Preconventional
• Stage 1) Driven by obedience and punishment
– Actions are performed to avoid punishment
– Actions are wrong because the actor was punished
– Example: Child cleans room to avoid being punished for not
cleaning room
• Stage 2) Moral Relativism: Quid pro Quo
– Actions are performed to get rewards
– Actions are wrong if they don’t benefit me.
– Example: Child cleans room to get allowance
• Note lack of perspective taking and understanding of others
or society
Level 2: Conventional
• Stage 3: Self Intentions
– There are social standards and I want to obey them. Not acting
bad is good.
– Moral reasoning is still centered on self – self’s relation to
society
– Ex: I don’t break the law because I want to be perceived in a
good manner (reputation)
• Stage 4: Moral Authority
– Actions are driving by laws and conventions, govern by society,
not individual
– Actions are wrong if they violate laws/conventions
– Morality is dictated by external forces
– Ex: I don’t break the law because laws are designed to prevent
others from getting harmed
Level 3: Post Conventional
• Stage 5: Social Contracts
– The world has a set of moralities. Different individuals hold different
values, opinions, and rights.
– Actions are seen as wrong if they violate a particular culture’s values,
not necessary one’s own values or one’s own culture’s values.
• Stage 6: Universal Ethic
– Morality is based on abstract concept of justice
– Society’s Laws are only relevant if they are just. Moral transgressions
are defined by justice, not society.
– Moral judgments about others’ actions are made based on whether
one takes another’s perspective.
• Most people are at Stage 4-5.
An alternative
• Kohlberg’s stages are rational and reasoned.
• An alternate: Haidt (2001)
– Moral reasoning is based on quick, automatic,
(perceptual) judgments on valence (good vs. bad)
• “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail”
– Many morally repellent acts (e.g., incest) are seen
as morally repellent, even if we cannot explain
why
• Akin to disgust:
What are Dual Systems?
• Intuitive System
– Fast and effortless
– Runs automatically
– Encapsulated
– No attention
required (not
affected by
distraction)
• Rational System
– Slow and effortful
– Can be controlled
– Consciously accessed
(can generate reasons)
– Requires attentional
resources (affected by
distraction)
How does this work?
• Environment triggers two processes
– Automatic one and controlled rational one.
– Automatic one also affects rational process
– Rational process generates a response
Example: Trolleyology
• There is a runaway trolley going down the tracks.
In the path of the trolley, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. You are standing
next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley
will switch to a different set of tracks. However,
that there is one person on the different track.
• You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the
trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2)
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side
track where it will kill one person.
• Which is the most ethical choice?
Trolley Problems
• Lots of people say pull the lever (90%)
• Number reduced if the one person is a family
member
• Same problem – but this time, you can push a fat
man off the bridge to stop the trolley, killing the
man
– Many fewer people push the man (except when he
tied up the five people to kill them)
– Why? Causing bodily harm causes a more negative
affective (Automatic) response. Harder to reason in
the conflict.
Paxton and Greene
• Suggest that there are different kinds of moral
dilemmas, which activate different reasoning
systems
– Deontic judgments are about rights and obligations –
driven primarily by intuition
– Utilitarian judgments are about the greater good,
helping others, and being fair – driven primarily by
rational system
– Supported by neuroscientific evidence of different
neural systems responsible for different kinds of
problems.
Universal Morality?
• Haidt et al. (2006): Universal Concepts of Morality
–
–
–
–
–
Harm/Care
Fairness/reciprocity
Ingroup loyalty
Authority/respect
Purity/sanctity
• Seem to be agreed on by all cultures (at least those
investigated), but there are individual differences
within any culture
– E.g., liberal/conservatives in US – everyone agrees on harm
and fairness. But liberals and conservatives disagree on the
loyalty, respect for authority and purity
• Ex: Sex vs. Food
Moral Reasoning 2
CLPS0020: Introduction to Cognitive
Science
Professor Dave Sobel
Fall 2016
How do we develop morality?
• Helping and Fairness were two of Haidt’s
universal moral principles
• Today: Developmental origins of Helping and
Fairness
Innate Preferences for Helpers
• Hamlin et al. (2007)
– 6-month-olds are habituated to this event and this
event
– Given choice between helper and hinderer – choose
to touch helper (preference for helper)
• Numerous follow ups (albeit some
controversial)
– Another Example
– Some evidence that this is all about associations,
not evidence for morality.
Spontaneous Helping?
• Numerous demonstrations by Warneken &
Tomasello (2006) of 18-month-olds (and Chimps!)
engaging in spontaneous helping
– Book Video
– Clothespin Video
• Even cases in which adult doesn’t notice the accident
(Video - offline)
• Even in cases in which it costs them to help (although
this isn’t until children are 4)
Fairness
• Like helping, children seem to have early
preferences for fairness. 15-month-olds:
– Prefer to look at fair distributions
– Prefer to interact with fair distributors (Schmidt &
Sommerville, 2011)
• Brownell et al. (2009) showed that 24-month-olds
would distribute resources fairly, giving
themselves and another equal amounts over just
giving themselves that amount.
Spontaneous Sharing
• Warneken & Tomasello (2013)
– 2-3-year-olds will be more likely to share a windfall
gain with another person if that person shared or
collaborated with them previously
• Chernyak & Sobel (2016)
– 3-4-year-olds take intentions into account. Children
collaborate with a confederate. The confederate
intentionally or accidentally does something naughty,
and is “punished” by an experimenter, who gives a
windfall to the child. The confederate protests, and
the question is whether children spontaneous share
Children share more with accidental
confederate than intentional one
Unfair Distributions
• When resources are distributed unfairly, there are
two possibilities
– Unfair distribution in one’s favor (advantageous
inequity)
– Unfair distribution not in one’s favor (disadvantageous
inequity)
– Also, note, these could involve child as participant or
be third party
• Latter not studied often
• How do children resolve these?
Inequity Game (Blake & McAullife,
2011)
• Child plays against another child. Distributions
are made. Child either accepts (each gets
what’s coming), or rejects (each gets nothing)
General Results
• Children as young as 3 reject disadvantageous
inequities (Called Disadvantageous inequity
aversion)
– Culturally Universal (Blake et al., 2015)
• Rejection of advantageous inequity
(Advantageous Inequity Aversion, AIA)
develops between ages 6-8
– Not culturally universal
Development of AIA
• Six- to 8-year-olds will throw away a resource to
not create an inequity
– Both first and third party situations (Shaw & Olsen,
2008)
• Socially mandated (Heck et al., 2016)
– When licensed to create an inequity, 3-5-year-olds will
do so more often it benefits them than when the
inequity is between two third parties
• Mediated by emotional knowledge (consistent with general
ideas posited by Killen et al., 2011)
Conclusions
• Human beings are social creatures
• Helping is innate
– Controversial
– But optimistic!
• Certain low level notions of fairness are innate
– Controversial
– But also optimistic!
– Development of broader concepts of fairness follows
Kohlberg stages in certain ways (AIA is certainly NOT
preconventional).