Transcript Ethics

Naturalism & Ethics
Implications?
National Chung Cheng University
Chia-Yi Taiwan
June 10, 2009
Owen Flanagan
James B. Duke Professor of Philosophy
Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience
Co-Director Center for Comparative Philosophy
Duke University
Topic:
What do the psychology and biology of
morality have to do with normative ethics?
Thesis/Topic?Question
1.
Darwin + Cognitive Science & Neuroscience teach that the
MIND is less UNIFIED than we think.
2.
Disunity of Mind has implications for Philosophy of Mind &
Ethics.
3.
Possibility that the PROJECT OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT
thinking of Ethics in terms of Rational General Purpose Rules
is psychologically unrealistic.
4.
Emotion Based Modular Theory (MORAL MODULARITY
HYPOTHESIS) may be more credible (e.g. Trolley Problems)
But, again
What do the biology & psychology of
morality have to do with OUGHT, with
NORMATIVITY?
Cautions
Evolution can explain how, why, and which
moral dispositions evolved & why, namely, to
enhance inclusive genetic fitness
Evolution alone cannot explain what
produces flourishing, eudaimonia -- a new
end for “fit beings” -- what else is needed
Key Distinctions
• AdaptationHistorical - a trait that increased
fitness when it evolved, e.g., the
appendix.
• AdaptationCurrent Ecology - a trait that still
enhances fitness in the current
environment
What is a Module?
• A independent dedicated processor that
has a “specialized job” in a complex
system, e.g., heart, kidneys, liver,
pancreas in the human body.
• Each organ works over a particular kind
of input and gives a particular type of
output.
What is a Mental Module?
• An independent psychobiological
processor that has a specialized job in
mental life
• The processor takes in a particular kind
of input & gives a specialized kind of
output, e.g., eyes take in light only, ears
take in sounds only respectively
produce sights and sounds as output.
Modules in Cog Sci
Fodorian Modules: e.g., REFLEXES; Five
Senses; Face Recognition System
•
•
•
•
•
Fast acting
Automatic
Informationally encapsulated
Cognitively impenetrable
Breakdown Modularly
Darwinian Modules: Same as F-modules but
affectively loaded & action oriented, e.g.,
Basic Emotions
Affect Programs (e.g. Darwin-Ekman Emotions)
Classical Modularity
Mencius & Human Nature
Humans all have hearts that are not unfeeling toward
others. Suppose someone suddenly saw a child
about to fall into a well: everyone in such a situation
would have a feeling of alarm and compassion –
not because one sought to get in good with the
child’s parents, not because one wanted fame among
their neighbors and friends, and not because one
would dislike the sounds of the child’s cries. [F]rom
this we can see that if one is without the heart of
compassion, one is not a human. (2A6)
FOUR MENCIAN SEEDS
If one is without the heart of deference, one is not a
human. The heart of compassion is the sprout of
benevolence. The heart of disdain (shame/disgust)
is the sprout of righteousness. The heart of
deference is the sprout of propriety. The heart of
approval and disapproval is the sprout of wisdom.”
(2A6; see also 6A6).
“People having these four sprouts is like their having
four limbs.” (2A6)
“Then without realizing it one’s feet begin to step in
time to them and one’s hands dance according to
their rhythms.” (4A27)
But Negligent Care of Sprouts
“In general, having these four sprouts
within oneself, if one knows how to fill
them out…If one can merely fill them
out, they will be sufficient to care for all
within the Four Seas. If one merely fails
to fill them out, they will be insufficient to
serve one’s parents.” (2A6)
Mencian Modularity
Moral Modularity Descriptive: Human nature
contains seeds for four different moral
competencies.
Moral Modularity Normative: Socio-moral
excellence involves growing all four seeds to
maturity.
Mencius + Darwin
(1) Evolution settled on four leg/four limb design
because it was an adaptation = adaptationhistorical;
(2) It is still adaptive = adaptationcurrent ecology
(3) It emerges naturally in a universal species
specific way across ecologies and thus
(4) Human animals ought to grow their legs the way
nature designs(ed) them to grow.
Moral Analogy
1. Evolution settled on four moral seeds because they were
adaptations = adaptationhistorical.
2. They are still adaptive = adaptationcurrent ecology.
3. The seeds emerge and grow and are tuned (roughly) the same
way across all natural and social ecologies.
4. Therefore, we ought to grow the seeds the way Mother Nature
designed them to grow.
For morals #2 is QUESTIONABLE #3 seems
FALSE
“In order that primeval men, or the ape-like progenitors of man,
should become social…they must have acquired the same
instinctive feelings…They would have felt uneasy when
separated from their comrades, for whom they would have felt
some degree of love, they would have warned each other of
danger, and have given mutual aid in attack or defence. All this
implies some degree of sympathy, fidelity, and
courage….[T]o the instinct of sympathy…it is primarily due
that we habitually bestow both praises and blame on others,
whilst we love the former and dread the latter when applied to
ourselves; and this instinct no doubt was originally acquired, like
all the other social instincts, through natural selection…. [W]ith
increased experience and reason, man perceives the more
remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding
virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during earlier
times are…utterly disregarded come to be highly esteemed or
even held sacred…Ultimately our moral sense or conscience
becomes a highly complex sentiment --- originating in the
social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our
fellow-men, ruled by reason, self- interest, and in later times
by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction
and habit.” Charles Darwin, Descent, 1871 pp. 498-500.
21st Century Modularity (SIM)
• Five Darwinian modules
• Function to meet adaptive challenges
• Possess Normal Phenotypic Variation,
e.g., gender
MMH &
P.F. Strawson Reactive Attitudes 1962
Indignation
Resentment
Gratitude
Approbation
Guilt
Shame
Hurt Feelings
Feelings of Affection & Love
Forgiveness
Strawson claimed that (1) the reactive attitudes
are part of the normal and original conative
repertoire of members of the species Homo
sapiens; (2) the reactive attitudes express
normal human reactions to acts, traits,
dispositions, or to whole persons; (3) the
normal expression of the reactive emotions
involves interpersonal relations where
benevolence or malevolence is displayed or,
at least, where they are at stake.
Strawson writes: ”Compare the question of the
justification of induction. The human
commitment to inductive belief-formation is
original, natural, and non-rational (not
irrational), in no way something we choose or
could give up.”
The idea, I take it is to suggest that what goes
for induction also goes for the reactive
attitudes – they are “original, natural, nonrational (not irrational)…[and not something
we ever] “could give up.”
Ok But…The Question remains
• Accept that the Reactive Attitudes can
only be tuned up/down, moderated,
modified, grown, suppressed…
• What are the reasons/ social
conditions / adaptive challenges that
warrant developing them, and thus
moral personality, one way rather than
another? What is the right way?
If MMH (Mencian or 21st c.
SIM) is true, then one should
see every moral tradition
giving moral attention (+ or -)
to the seeds-that-are-trying-to
grow inside us
Liberals moralize
harm/compassion &
justice/injustice/fairness
(more than conservatives)
Conservatives moralize all
five (to significant some
degree)
Bodhisattva’s Virtues
Brahmaviharas
Compassion (karuna)
Lovingkindness (metta)
Appreciative/sympathetic Joy (mudita)
Equanimity (upekkha)
Hypertrophy of Compassion?
Conclusions?
Normative Consequences?
1. Understanding and/or Tolerance?
2. What else? What is the right way to
tune the modules? And why?
The End
Thank You!