Experimental Philosophy

1
Experimental Philosophy The Persistence of
Moral Disagreement

• Stephen Stich
• Dept. of Philosophy
• Center for Cognitive Science
• Rutgers University
• sstich_at_ruccs.rutgers.edu

2
Brief Intro
3
Brief Intro
4
Brief Intro
5
PART 1

• A Very Brief Introduction to Experimental
  Philosophy

6
Brief Intro

• On MY view experimental philosophy does not have
  any distinctive aims or methods

7
Brief Intro

• Rather, experimental philosophy is simply a more
  systematic way of doing something that has been
  done by philosophers from Aristotle, Descartes
  and Berkeley

8
Brief Intro

• Rather, experimental philosophy is simply a more
  systematic way of doing something that has been
  done by philosophers from Aristotle, Descartes
  and Berkeley to Fodor and Chalmers

9
Brief Intro

• Throughout the history of philosophy,
  philosophers have made empirical claims about
• perception
• the mind
• language
• society
• what ordinary people think
• and lots of other things

10
Brief Intro

• To support those claims, philosophers have relied
  on
• common sense
• informal observation
• experimental studies done by scientists in
  various disciplines

11
Brief Intro

• To support those claims, philosophers have relied
  on
• common sense
• informal observation
• experimental studies done by scientists in
  various disciplines

But scientists tend to investigate questions
whose answers are important in their own
disciplines, and often these are not the
questions to which philosophers need answers
12
Brief Intro

• So, over the last decade, a growing number of
  philosophers have decided to design and conduct
  their own experiments, or to collaborate with
  colleagues in other disciplines, with the goal of
  answering the questions that are particularly
  relevant to philosophical debates

13
Brief Intro
Nichols
Machery
Griffiths
Greene
Knobe
14
Brief Intro

• On my view, Experimental Philosophy is just
• experimental work
• aimed at answering empirical questions
• that are relevant to philosophical debates

15
PART 2

• The Persistence of Moral Disagreement
• ----
• An Example of How Experimental Philosophy the
  More Traditional Strategy of Assembling Relevant
  Scientific Findings Can Be Combined to Address
  Important Philosophical Issues

16
Philosophical Background

• Fundamental Moral Disagreement
• No one doubts that moral views differ both within
  cultural groups

17
Philosophical Background

• Fundamental Moral Disagreement
• No one doubts that moral views differ both within
  cultural groups and across cultural groups

18
Philosophical Background

• Fundamental Moral Disagreement
• But whether that diversity of views would persist
  under idealized circumstance is a hotly debated
  question
• How to characterize the relevant sort of
  idealized circumstances is a difficult and
  contentious question

19
Philosophical Background

• It is widely agreed that in to be ideally
  situated people must be
• rational
• impartial
• agree on all relevant non-moral issues
• There is much debate on how these notions are to
  be understood
• But Ill assume we all have a rough understanding
  which is good enough for present purposes

20
Philosophical Background

• If a moral disagreement would persist under
  idealized circumstances, Ill say that the
  disagreement is
• Fundamental
• If it would not persist under idealized
  circumstances, Ill say that the disagreement is
• Superficial

21
Philosophical Background

• There are many reasons why its philosoph-ically
  important to know whether moral disagreement is
  fundamental or superficial
• Ill focus on two
• Ideal Observer Qualified Attitude Theories
• Moral Realism

22
Philosophical Background

• Ideal Observer Qualified Attitude Theories
• (arguably) defended by Adam Smith, Hume
  Hutcheson
• and by Firth, Brandt, Lewis, Harman other
  leading moral theorists in the 20th century

23
Philosophical Background

• Semantic Version
• x is morally right (wrong) means anyone who is
  ideally situated ( rational, impartial, fully
  informed, etc.) would have a (un)favorable
  attitude toward x
• If ideally situated people disagree about x, then
  x is neither right nor wrong
• Semantic version fundamental disagreement ?
  
• Moral Skepticism

24
Philosophical Background

• Justification Version
• a moral claim is justified iff the person
  making the claim would have the appropriate
  attitude toward the matter at hand, after going
  thru an appropriate idealizing process ( a
  process that corrects relevant false beliefs
  removes partiality, irrationality, etc).

25
Philosophical Background

• If two ideally situated people have different
  attitudes about x, then
• x is wrong
• is justified for one while
• x is not wrong
• is justified for the other
• This version of the Ideal Observer Theory
  fundamental disagreement ?
• Moral Relativism

26
Philosophical Background

• Moral Realism
• defended by Boyd, Brink, Railton, Michael Smith,
  Sturgeon many others
• there are lots of important differences between
  these theorists
• but for most of them, the persistence of moral
  disagreement that does not depend on non-moral
  disagreement (or other distorting factors, like
  self-interest or irrationality) would pose a
  significant problem

27
Philosophical Background

• Richard Boyd

• "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)

28
Philosophical Background

• David Brink

It is incumbent on the moral realist . . . To
claim that most moral disputes are resolvable at
least in principle. (1984)
29
Philosophical Background
The notion of objectivity signifies the
possibility of a convergence in moral views
(1994 6)

• Michael Smith

30
Philosophical Background

• Many Moral Realists and many Moral Anti-Realists
  would agree that
• Fundamental moral disagreement (i.e.
  persisting diversity under idealized conditions)
  entails, or at least strongly suggests, that
• Moral Realism is False

Non-Convergentists disagree
31
Philosophical Background

• For these reasons (and others) it is clearly
• philosophically important
• to determine whether (and to what extent)
  moral disagreement is
• fundamental

32
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data
33
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Arguably the first experimental philosopher of
  the modern period was

Richard Brandt 1910 - 1997
34
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• There is a large anthropological literature
  (going back to Westermark 1906) documenting
  radically divergent moral outlooks in different
  cultures.
• But traditional ethnography gives little guidance
  about what peoples moral attitudes would be
  under idealized circumstances.
• In the 1950s, Brandts began a study of the Hopis
  aimed at providing the sort of ethno-graphy that
  would be useful to philosophers

35
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Brandt found a number of examples of moral
  differences between Hopis white Americans that
  he could not trace to non-moral disagreement
• Hopi have no moral qualms about allowing children
  to play with small animals in a way which
  causes them great pain, breaks their bones and
  ultimately kills them
• Brandt looked for evidence that the disagreement
  between the Hopis moral view and the view of
  contemporary white Americans was superficial
• But he found none

36
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Hopi do not believe that these animals lack the
  capacity to feel pain
• nor do they believe (e.g.) that animals are
  rewarded for martyrdom in the afterlife
• nor could Brandt find any other nonmoral belief
  or failure of imagination that could account for
  the disagreement

37
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Brandt concluded that these moral disagreements
  are fundamental
• they reflect a basic difference of attitude
  which would not disappear under idealized
  conditions like those that his own qualified
  attitude theory specified

38
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• He went on to argue that the Qualified Attitude
  Theory (his own justification-based version of
  the Ideal Observer Theory) led to relativism
• and that some semantic versions of the Ideal
  Observer Theory led to skepticism

39
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Richard Nisbetts studies of attitudes toward
  honor violence in Cultures of Honor is a
  rich source of evidence suggesting that some very
  important examples of moral disagreement are
  fundamental

40
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Richard Nisbetts studies of attitudes toward
  honor violence in Cultures of Honor is a
  rich source of evidence suggesting that some very
  important examples of moral disagreement are
  fundamental

41
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• A key aspect of the culture of honor is the
  importance placed on the insult and the necessity
  to respond to it. An insult implies that the
  target is weak enough to be bullied. Since a
  reputation for strength is of the essence in the
  culture of honor, the individual who insults
  someone must be forced to retract if the
  instigator refuses, he must be punished with
  violence or even death. (Nisbett and Cohen
  1996 5)

42
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Cultures of honor tend to arise in situations
  where resources are liable to theft and where the
  states coercive apparatus cannot be relied on to
  prevent or punish theft
• These conditions often occur in relatively remote
  areas where herding is the main viable form of
  agriculture the "portability" of herd animals
  makes them prone to theft
• They also occur in many urban, inner city areas
  where police protection for minorities is
  unreliable

43
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Cultures of honor exhibit considerable cultural
  inertia, persisting for many generations after
  the conditions that gave rise to them disappeared
• Parts of the American South were originally
  settled by Scotch-Irish herders with a long
  culture of honor tradition
• Nisbett Cohen argue that a culture of honor
  persists among white southerners in the USA
• They support this claim with data of various
  sorts, including

44
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Demographic data indicating that
• among southern whites homicides are more common
  in regions where herding once was common
• white males in the South are much more likely
  than white males in other regions to be involved
  in homicides resulting from arguments
• they are not more likely to be involved in
  homicides that occur in the course of a robbery
  or other felony

45
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Survey data indicating that white southerners are
  more likely to believe
• that violence is extremely justified in
  response to a variety of affronts
• that if a man fails to respond violently, he is
  not much of a man

46
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Legal scholarship indicating that southern states
  give citizens more freedom to use violence in
  defending themselves, their homes, and their
  property"

47
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Particularly compelling were a field study of
  moral responses to culture of honor violence and
  a series of laboratory experiments
• In the field study letters were sent to hundreds
  of employers in the North South.
• The letters purported to be from a 27 year old
  Michigan man who had one blemish on his otherwise
  solid record.

48
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• One letter explained
• I have been convicted of manslaughter I got
  into a fight with someone who was having an
  affair with my fiancée. He confronted me in
  front of my friends at a bar, told everyone that
  he and my fiancée were sleeping together,
  laughed at me to my face, and asked me to step
  outside if I was man enough.
• The other letter explained that the applicant
  had stolen a couple of expensive cars at a time
  when he needed money to support his family.

49
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Southern employers were more likely to be
  sympathetic in response to the manslaughter
  incident than the car theft.
• There was no such difference in responses from
  northern employers.

50
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• One southern employer wrote back
• As for your problems of the past, anyone could
  probably be in the situation you were in. It was
  just an unfortunate incident that should not be
  held against you. Your honesty shows that you
  are sincere. I wish you the best of luck for
  your future. You have a positive attitude and a
  willingness to work. These are qualities that
  businesses look for in employees.
• No northern employers were comparably
  sympathetic.

51
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The laboratory experiments were conducted on
  white, male (mostly upper middle class)
  University of Michigan undergraduates from the
  North the South
• Subjects were told saliva samples would be
  collected to measure blood sugar as they
  performed various tasks
• After a sample was collected, Ss walked down a
  narrow corridor where they were bumped by a
  confederate who called the S an asshole
• A 2nd saliva sample was collected both samples
  tested for cortisol (associated with stress)
  testosterone (associated with dominance behavior
  aggression)

52
85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 0
15 10 5 0
Change in Testosterone Level
Change in Cortisol Level
Control
Insult
Control
Insult
Culture of Honor Subjects
Non-Culture of Honor Subjects
53
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• These findings suggest that moral attitudes about
  the appropriateness of violence in response to
  insults will not converge even under idealized
  circumstances, and thus that these disagreements
  are fundamental
• To see why, consider the standard examples of
  defusing explanations used by Moral Realists to
  argue that disagreement is not fundamental

54
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The disagreement is caused or sustained by
  disagreement about relevant non-moral facts
• It is hard to see what these non-moral facts
  might be
• We know (for example) that there are no
  systematic religious differences between the
  Northern Southern students in Nisbetts
  experiment
• Nor is there any reason to think that Northerners
  did not believe that calling someone an asshole
  is an insult

55
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Of course, it is always possible that there is an
  unsuspected systematic difference in belief
• But it seems clear that the burden of argument
  falls squarely on those who deny that the moral
  disagreements between culture of honor subjects
  and non-culture of honor subjects are fundamental

56
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The disagreement is caused by one group or the
  other failing to be impartial
• There is no reason to think that southerners
  economic interests are served by being quick on
  the draw, while northerners economic interests
  are served by turning the other cheek. (Doris
  Plakias, p. 30)

57
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The disagreement is caused by one group or the
  other being significantly more irrational
• On thin interpretations of rationality, this is
  singularly implausible
• It is perhaps more plausible on thick
  interpretations of rationality because

58
Southerners voted for Bush!
59
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• So they are OBVIOUSLY IRRATIONAL
• But, of course, thick interpretations of
  rationality are typically normatively loaded, and
  thus question begging

60
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The Geography of Morals Project (Doris, Peng,
  Uskul, Nichols Stich)
• Inspired by Nisbetts findings
• EAs are more collectivist Ws are more
  individualist
• The EA conception of the person emphasizes social
  roles (mother, teacher) and de-emphasizes
  context independent attributes(honest,
  gregarious)
• This suggests EAs would take a harsher view of
  transgressions destructive of group ties a more
  lenient view of transgressions that benefit the
  group

61
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Note that if these psychological differences have
  a significant impact on moral judgment, it is
  plausible that the resulting disagreement is
  fundamental

62
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Experiment I
• Subjects were Asian nonAsian undergrads at
  U.C. Berkeley
• All experimental material was in English
• Experiment 2
• Subjects were Chinese students in Beijing
  non-Asian undergrads at U.C. Santa Cruz
• Experimental material was translated into Chinese
  for Chinese subjects

63
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Case I The Magistrate the Mob
• An unidentified member of an ethnic group
  is known to be responsible for a murder that
  occurred in a town. This causes many of the
  townspeople to become extremely hostile towards
  the ethnic group. Because the town has a history
  of severe ethnic conflict and rioting, the town's
  Police Chief and Judge know that if they do not
  immediately identify and punish a culprit, the
  townspeople will start anti-ethnic rioting that
  will cause great damage to property owned by
  members of the ethnic group, and a considerable
  number of serious injuries and deaths in the
  ethnic population. But nobody in the community
  knows who the murderer is, or where to find him. ?

64
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The Police Chief and Judge are faced with
  a dilemma. They can falsely accuse, convict, and
  imprison Mr. Smith, an innocent member of the
  ethnic group, in order to prevent the riots. Or
  they can continue hunting for the guilty man,
  thereby allowing the anti-ethnic riots to occur,
  and do the best they can to combat the riots
  until the guilty man is apprehended. After
  discussing and debating their options at length,
  the Police Chief and Judge decide to falsely
  accuse, convict, and imprison Mr. Smith, the
  innocent member of the ethnic group, in order to
  prevent the riots. They do so, thereby
  preventing the riots and preventing a
  considerable number of ethnic group deaths and
  serious injuries.

65
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The (Western!) philosophical consensus on cases
  like this is clear.
• Judges ought not to find the innocent guilty in
  order to prevent riots in the street, period.
  (Bloomfield 2001)
• Someone who really thinks, in advance, that it
  is open to question whether such an action as
  procuring the judicial execution of the innocent
  is permissible should be quite excluded from
  consideration-- I do not want to argue with him

66
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The (Western!) philosophical consensus on cases
  like this is clear.
• Judges ought not to find the innocent guilty in
  order to prevent riots in the street, period.
  (Bloomfield 2001)
• Someone who really thinks, in advance, that it
  is open to question whether such an action as
  procuring the judicial execution of the innocent
  is permissible should be quite excluded from
  consideration-- I do not want to argue with him
  he shows a corrupt mind. (Anscombe 1958)
• Compare (even!) Smart (1973)

67
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Western students in a pilot study made similar
  comments
• Falsely implicating a person is never justified.
  The individuals right to liberty outweighs the
  prevention of property damage, riots, and even
  the prevention of injury or death that would
  likely result from the riot.

68
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• However, in both Experiment I (with
  Asian-Americans) Experiment II (with Chinese
  students) the Asians were less inclined to make
  these judgments

69
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Here are some of the moral questions subjects
  were asked
• 4. The Police Chief and Judge did the morally
  right thing
• 5. The Police Chief and Judge did the morally
  wrong thing
• 6. The Police Chief and Judge should be punished
  for what they did
• 8. The Police Chief and Judge should feel guilty
  for what they did
• 12. The Police Chief and Judge are responsible
  for Mr. Smith being falsely accused, convicted
  and imprisoned
• 13. The townspeople are responsible for Mr. Smith
  being falsely accused, convicted and imprisoned

70
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• and here are some of the factual questions
  subjects were asked
• 1. Being falsely accused, convicted, and
  imprisoned caused Mr. Smith to suffer
• 2. Mr. Smith being falsely accused, convicted,
  and imprisoned caused Mr. Smiths friends,
  family, and loved ones to suffer
  
• 3. If the riots occurred, they would have caused
  members of the ethnic group to suffer

71
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Results
• Chinese subjects were significantly less likely
  to think that the Police Chief the Judge did
  was morally wrong
• They were significantly more likely to think that
  what they did was morally right
• They were significantly less likely to say that
  the Police Chief the Judge should be punished
• Chinese subjects were significantly more likely
  to hold the potential rioters responsible for the
  scapegoating
• Suggesting that they attributed more
  responsibility at the level of the collective
  than did their more individualist counterparts

72
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Case II Promiscuity
• Jack and Debbie have been happily married
  for 15 years. Jacks best friend from childhood,
  Casey, is passing through town on business, and
  Jack and Debbie invite him to stay at their house
  for a few days. All three of them have a great
  time, drinking, eating, laughing, and talking
  over old times. On the morning before Casey is
  scheduled to leave, Jack is called in to work to
  deal with an emergency. Casey, old friend,
  Jack says, Im sorry I wont be here to see you
  off. But I want you to enjoy our fullest
  hospitality. ?

73
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Looking meaningfully at Debbie, Jack says,
  Debbie will be pleased to see to your every
  need, wont you, Debbie? The implication is
  clear Jack is inviting Casey to have sex with
  his wife. After Jack leaves, Debbie and Casey
  have sex.

74
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• 2. What Jack did was morally wrong
• 3. What Jack did was morally right
• 4. Jack should be punished for what he did
• 5. Jack should have been prevented from doing
  what he did
• 6. If what Jack did was not customary in his
  culture, it would be morally wrong
• 7. If what Jack did was customary in his culture,
  it would be morally right
• 8. I would be bothered by what Jack did, even if
  it were customary in his culture

75
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Results
• Chinese subjects were more likely to agree that
  this behavior is morally wrong
• They were less likely to agree that it was
  morally right
• They were more likely to think that Jack should
  be punished for doing what he did
• They were more likely to think that Jack should
  have been prevented from doing what he did

76
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• These results indicate that Chinese subjects were
  more likely to think this kind of sexual behavior
  is appropriately morally condemned, subject to
  punitive responses, and legitimately interfered
  with
• These findings are predicted by the hypothesis
  that Chinese culture is more collectivist
• since this kind of sexual behavior is,
  intuitively, a threat to the family, among the
  most important forms of association in a
  collectivist culture

77
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Case III Honor
• Jack and Debbie have been happily married
  for 15 years. Jacks best friend from childhood,
  Casey, is passing through town on business, and
  Jack and Debbie invite him to stay at their house
  for a few days. All three of them have a great
  time, drinking, eating, laughing, and talking
  over old times. On the morning before Casey is
  scheduled to leave, Jack is called in to work to
  deal with an emergency. ?

78
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• When he returns a few hours later, he
  finds Debbie and Casey lying on the couch, naked
  in each others arms. They have obviously been
  having sex. Jack is enraged his best friend and
  wife have betrayed him. Bastard, he shouts at
  Casey. How can you insult a man like this, when
  you are a guest in his home? Casey tries to
  respond, but before he can do anything, Jack
  pulls a knife, stabbing and killing him.

79
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Subjects were asked many of the same questions
  they were asked about the promiscuity case. They
  were also asked some additional questions,
  including
• 1. What Casey and Debbie did caused Jack to
  suffer
• 2. What Jack did caused Casey and Debbie to
  suffer

80
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Results
• Chinese subjects were less likely to think the
  homicide committed by Jack was morally wrong
• They were more likely to think it was morally
  right
• They were less likely to think Jack should be
  punished
• They were more likely to assent to the statement,
  If what Jack did was customary in his culture,
  it would be morally right.

81
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Again, most of these results can be explained by
  the hypothesis that Chinese morality is more
  collectivist
• The Chinese subjects are more tolerant of
  violence in response to an anti-collective
  behavior the individual pursuit of sexual
  gratification at the expense of a collective
  the family
• If that is right, then it is plausible that the
  disagreement is fundamental

82
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• None of the standard defusing explanations look
  plausible
• There were no differences between Chinese
  Westerners on any of the non-moral questions,
  like
• What Casey and Debbie did caused Jack to suffer.
• What Jack did caused Casey and Debbie to suffer.
• It is hard to see how either group might be
  considered less impartial
• And it is hard to take seriously the suggestion
  that one group or the other suffers from
  irrationality

83
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• or that 1.3 billion Chinese have

corrupt minds!
Elizabeth Anscombe
84
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• The Henrich et al. study
• Economic games in small scale societies
• UG, DG PGG
• No explicit questions about norms were asked, so
  conclusions about moral views must be inferred

85
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• Henrich et al. show that the cross-cultural
  diversity in behavior cannot be entirely
  explained in terms of strategic considerations or
  culturally-variable risk aversion.
• Rather, across these 15 small-scale societies,
  subjects distribute windfall gains differently
  because they hold different views about fairness
• specifically about how to fairly distribute such
  windfall gains

86
Is (Some) Moral Disagreement Fundamental? A Look
at the Data

• And it is very plausible that these differences
  in attitude about fairness clearly an important
  part of morality -- are fundamental
• None of the standard defusing explanations are
  plausible.

87
Yes, but Some Support From a Theory
88
Yes, but Some Support From a Theory

• We are under no illusions that this study (and
  others that point in the same direction) will
  convince those who think there is little or no
  fundamental moral disagreement
• Those skeptical about fundamental moral
  disagreement might raise a variety of objections
  focusing on the details of these studies
• including possible sources of superficial
  disagreement that have not been ruled out

89
Yes, but Some Support From a Theory

• To address these Yes, but objections and move
  the debate forward, I believe that we need an
  empirically supported theory of the psychological
  mechanisms underlying the acquisition
  utilization of moral norms and of how those
  mechanisms might have evolved.
• Chandra Sripada I have recently published a
  theory aimed at doing that

90
Yes, but Some Support From a Theory

• Sripada Stich, A Frame-work for the
  Psychology of Norms, in The Innate Mind
  Culture Cognition, ed. by Carruthers, Laurence
  Stich, Oxford Univ. Press, 2006

91
Execution Mechanism
Acquisition Mechanism
norm data base r1---------- r2----------
r3---------- rn----------
infer contents of normative rules
identify norm implicating behavior
emotion system
Rule-related reasoning capacity
explicit reasoning
Proximal Cues in Environment
causal links that are well
supported by empirical findings
causal links for which there is currently little
evidence
92
The Model Claims that Moral Judgments
Execution Mechanism
Acquisition Mechanism
norm data base r1---------- r2----------
r3---------- rn----------
infer contents of normative rules
identify norm implicating behavior
emotion system
Rule-related reasoning capacity
explicit reasoning
Proximal Cues in Environment
causal links that are well
supported by empirical findings
causal links for which there is currently little
evidence
93
The Model Claims that Moral Judgments
Execution Mechanism
Acquisition Mechanism
norm data base r1---------- r2----------
r3---------- rn----------
infer contents of normative rules
identify norm implicating behavior
emotion system
Rule-related reasoning capacity
explicit reasoning
Proximal Cues in Environment
are largely determined by the rules in the norm
data base
causal links that are well
supported by empirical findings
causal links for which there is currently little
evidence
94
The Model Claims that Moral Judgments
Execution Mechanism
Acquisition Mechanism
norm data base r1---------- r2----------
r3---------- rn----------
infer contents of normative rules
identify norm implicating behavior
emotion system
Rule-related reasoning capacity
explicit reasoning
Proximal Cues in Environment
which are largely determined by the acquisition
mechanism
causal links that are well
supported by empirical findings
causal links for which there is currently little
evidence
95
The Model Claims that Moral Judgments
Execution Mechanism
Acquisition Mechanism
norm data base r1---------- r2----------
r3---------- rn----------
infer contents of normative rules
identify norm implicating behavior
emotion system
Rule-related reasoning capacity
explicit reasoning
Proximal Cues in Environment
which is heavily influenced by the norms that
prevail in the social environment
causal links that are well
supported by empirical findings
causal links for which there is currently little
evidence
96
Execution Mechanism
Acquisition Mechanism
norm data base r1---------- r2----------
r3---------- rn----------
infer contents of normative rules
identify norm implicating behavior
emotion system
Rule-related reasoning capacity
explicit reasoning
Proximal Cues in Environment
So people who grow up in social environments
in which different norms prevail will often make
different moral judgments even in ideal
conditions
causal links that are well
supported by empirical findings
causal links for which there is currently little
evidence
97
Execution Mechanism
Acquisition Mechanism
norm data base r1---------- r2----------
r3---------- rn----------
infer contents of normative rules
identify norm implicating behavior
emotion system
Rule-related reasoning capacity
explicit reasoning
Proximal Cues in Environment
So people who grow up in social environments
in which different norms prevail will often make
different moral judgments even in ideal
conditions
causal links that are well
supported by empirical findings
causal links for which there is currently little
evidence
98
Yes, but Some Support From a Theory

• Sripada I survey a substantial body of evidence
  which, we maintain, is consistent with this model
• But thats a topic for another talk

99
Yes, but Some Support From a Theory

• My goal in this talk was to illustrate the way in
  
• experiments designed to address philosophically
  important questions
• can be combined with the more traditional
  strategy of assembling relevant scientific
  findings
• to address important philosophical questions

100

• The End