1 / 39

Are Moral Disputes Intractable?

Are Moral Disputes Intractable?. Stephen Stich Dept. of Philosophy & Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University WORKSHOP ON INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND INTRACTABLE GLOBAL PROBLEMS. Introduction.

nicholas-carroll
Download Presentation

Are Moral Disputes Intractable?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Are Moral Disputes Intractable? Stephen Stich Dept. of Philosophy & Center for Cognitive Science Rutgers University WORKSHOP ON INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS AND INTRACTABLE GLOBAL PROBLEMS

  2. Introduction • Many of the most vexing global problems are -- at least in part -- rooted in moral disputes • The question I want to address is whether some of these disputes are intractable • I’ll approach the question from the perspective of an empirically oriented philosopher interested in the psychology & evolution of moral norms

  3. Introduction • This is an exciting time for philosophers who take an empirical approach to moral norms • Over the last decade there has been an explosion of interest in the area • Resulting in an impressive body of philosophically informed and empirically sophisticated inter-disciplinary research

  4. Introduction • My theme will be that this work gives us the tools to ask the question I have posed in my title in a new and innovative way • And to provide at least the beginning of an answer as well as a roadmap for future research

  5. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • One way to get clear about this is to focus on a theory of moral psych-ology on which moral disputes are NOT intractable • If that theory is mistaken, and I will argue that it is, then alternative accounts will show us some of the ways in which moral disputes can be intractable, and can help us think about how to deal with them

  6. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • The first step is the “linguistic analogy” first suggested by Rawls in A Theory of Justice and recently developed in great detail in an important new book by John Mikhail John Milhail

  7. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • The starting point of the analogy is the observation that moral judgments, like grammatical judgments, can be made about an endless number of new cases that we have never encountered before, and that typically these judgments are made very quickly with no conscious access to the underlying cognitive processes

  8. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Trolley cases provide a clear example • The first time we encounter these cases we quickly make a judgment about whether the action on morally permissible

  9. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Jon Haidt’snotorious dog and chicken cases provide additional examples • “A family’s dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.” Should the family be stopped or punished in any way?

  10. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Jon Haidt’snotorious dog and chicken cases provide additional examples • “A man does to the super market once a week and buys a dead chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it.” Should the man be stopped or punished in any way?

  11. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Clearly, we don’t have judgments about specific trolley cases and strange sex cases stored in our mind/brain ready to be retrieved when a question arises • Rather, Mikhail suggests, we have a set of general rules or principles -- just as we do in the case of grammar • These rules must be applied to specific cases in a way that depends on the facts about that case

  12. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? General Moral Principles & Rules (“moral grammar”) Judgment About the Case Beliefs about the facts of the case +

  13. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Where Do the Rules Come From? • The most venerable answer is nativism: • The rules are innate and are shared by all normal humans • Endorsed by a wide variety of thinkers, from antiquity to the present, including Plato Cicero Hume Adam Smith J.J. Rousseau Jefferson Darwin Mikhail

  14. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Many nativists, both historical & contemporary, have also been moral realists: they hold that (most) moral claims are either true or false Innate Correct (True) If these are true These will be true too

  15. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Many nativists, both historical & contemporary, have also been moral realists: they hold that (most) moral claims are either true or false Innate Correct (True) • Why should we think that Innate moral principles are Correct? • Some religious philosophers think that they were implanted in our mind byGod

  16. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Many nativists, both historical & contemporary, have also been moral realists: they hold that (most) moral claims are either true or false Innate Correct (True) • Why should we think that Innate moral principles are Correct? • Some secular thinkers think that they reflect “the wisdom of nature” or natural selection

  17. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Why nativists (& many moral realists) think that moral disputes are tractable Everyone agrees that there is a LOT of disagreement in moral judgments both WITHIN and BETWEEN cultures

  18. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Why nativists (& many moral realists) think that moral disputes are tractable If nativism is correct, then ALL of that diversity must be explained by different beliefs about the facts of the case

  19. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Why nativists (& many moral realists) think that moral disputes are tractable If nativism is correct, then ALL of that diversity must be explained by different beliefs about the facts of the case …or by a failure to grasp what the rules & principles say about the case

  20. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Why nativists (& many moral realists) think that moral disputes are tractable Thus nativists (and many moral realists) make TWO PREDICTIONS

  21. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Why nativists (& many moral realists) think that moral disputes are tractable • 1. When people make different moral judgments about the same case, it is because they have different factual beliefs about the case. • 2. If these factual disagreements were eliminated, moral disagreement would be eliminated as well.

  22. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Why nativists (& many moral realists) think that moral disputes are tractable • 1. When people make different moral judgments about the same case, it is because they have different factual beliefs about the case. • 2. If these factual disagreements were eliminated, moral disagreement would be eliminated as well. I will call this the “Eliminating Factual Disagreement Will Eliminate All Moral Disagreement” Prediction

  23. If the prediction is true, then there is a clear sense in which moral disagreements are tractable! What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Why nativists (& many moral realists) think that moral disputes are tractable • 1. When people make different moral judgments about the same case, it is because they have different factual beliefs about the case. • 2. If these factual disagreements were eliminated, moral disagreement would be eliminated as well. I will call this the “Eliminating Factual Disagreement Will Eliminate All Moral Disagreement” Prediction

  24. What is an “intractable” moral dispute? • Do nativists and moral realists really think that eliminating factual disagreement would eliminate moral disagreement? Richard Boyd - one of the founders of contemporary moral realism “Careful philosophical exam- ination will reveal …that agreement on nonmoral issues would eliminate almost all disagreement about the sorts of issues which arise in ordinary moral practice.”(1988)

  25. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • There is now a substantial body of research suggesting that the answer is NO • Haidt’s dog % yes

  26. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • There is now a substantial body of research suggesting that the answer is NO • Haidt’s chicken % yes

  27. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • It is singularly implausible that the high SES & low SES participants have different factual beliefs about eating dogs or masturbating with chickens % yes % yes

  28. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • It is much more plausible that the disagreement here derives from a difference here not here

  29. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • There are many other studies that point in the same direction

  30. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • There are many other studies that point in the same direction

  31. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • There are many other studies that point in the same direction

  32. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • There are many other studies that point in the same direction

  33. Is the Prediction True? Are Moral Disputes Really Tractable? • So it looks like nativists and moral realists like Boyd are wrong • Eliminating factual disagreement will NOT eliminate all moral disagreement • Some important moral disputes NOT tractable

  34. Where do we go from here? • So where DO the Rules Come From?

  35. Where do we go from here? • So where DO the Rules Come From? • Boyd & Richerson, Henrich and others have made a powerful case that they are the product of social learning, a process in which information-rich mental states are copied from one mind to another

  36. Where do we go from here? • So where DO the Rules Come From? • Boyd & Richerson, Henrich and others have made a powerful case that they are the product of social learning, a process in which information-rich mental states are copied from one mind to another

  37. Where do we go from here? • Different sets of rules will arise in different material, cultural and historical settings, and will be transformed by a process of cultural group selection • If we are to learn to deal with the global problems that arise from these intractable moral disputes, we’ll have to learn much more about the dynamics of social learningand the psychological and neurological processes that underlie it.

  38. Where do we go from here? • Among the questions we’ll need to answer are: • What are the factors that affect whether a newly introduced norm will spread thru a population? • What are the factors that lead to a widely shared norm becoming less common within a population? • What effect does competition between groups have on which norms survive and spread and which disappear?

  39. Where do we go from here? • Though there is much to learn, we already know a great deal about these issues as the result of the work of • … and our next speaker Rob Boyd Pete Richerson

More Related