Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Paul Staggerman wrote:So I posted this already on reddit and I wondered what you guys would think of it.
Moral realism is the view that some objective (generally meant as “attitude-independent”) moral truths exist. In the words of philosopher Stephen Finlay:"claims labeled ‘realist’ cannot be collectively characterized any less vaguely than as holding that ‘morality’, in some form, has some kind or other of independence from people’s attitudes or practices.” [7]. The following is my modest attempt at an objection to moral realism. This will draw heavily on studies in psychology as this is my field of study.
Paul Staggerman wrote:To begin, I would like to bring attention to Descartes Error by professor of psychology and neuroscientist, Antonio Damasio, in which he makes the case that emotions aren't a luxury but a crucial element of our decision-making. He first establishes this by showing several cases of people suffering lesions in regions of the brain that deal with emotions for instance the amygdala, the cingulate and the frontal lobe. Indeed, according to the professor, the individuals that would endure damage in those regions would become indecisive or would outright stop to reason (or to doing anything for that matter). The professor also often points out the fact that the subjects suffered no deficit in intelligence or in knowledge, as a matter of fact Elliot, the first subject not counting Phineas Gage, has an above average IQ. Later on, Damasio remarks of Elliot, mentioned above, that he started to think that “the cold-bloodedness of Elliot’s reasoning prevented him from assigning value to different options, and made his decision making landscape hopelessly flat”. Decision-making relies on what he calls somatic-markers which are in short according to Damasio, "feeling generated from secondary emotions. Those emotions and feelings have been connected, by learning, to predicted future outcome of certain scenarios." and what they do is push attention towards negative/positive result [1]. I think this poses a problem for the moral realist. The term morality refers to, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.” [6], but from the above evidence it does seem that ways to behave can’t be “put forward” without emotions which are attitudes, because decision making depends on emotions.
Paul Staggerman wrote:To continue, there also seems to be evidence against the notion defended by many moral realists that certain moral choices and hence moral actors are, all things equal otherwise, intrinsically less logical. We can point to sociopaths and psychopaths who, as a group, are normally inferior moral agents according to both folk morality and to the most common theories of normative ethics, yet whose condition does not seem to be the result of low intelligence. Studies on sociopaths don’t seem to show them as having low IQs, to quote Hare and Neuman when speaking on psychopathy from their paper Psychopathy As A Clinical And Empirical Construct : “ However, a substantial literature indicates that the association between the PCL-R total score and standard measures of intelligence is weak at best(Hare 2003). Moreover, there is no obvious theoretical reason why the disorder described by Cleckley or other clinicians should be related to intelligence; some psychopaths are bright, others less so.” [2]. People with the condition also seem capable of assessing others emotions in a study [3]. As we know, a psychopath is characterized, by a lack of certain emotional states (empathy, guilt, remorse, etc.). The data we currently have on moral decision-making leads us to believe that lesions or low activity in regions related to emotions, such as parts of the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, lead sociopath-like behaviour. Those same regions show increased activity in normal individuals when confronted with moral dilemmas of various sorts. [4] So it would seem that those “bad moral agents” aren’t in such a state because of their inability to observe the world and reason logically (IQ tests measure logical and mathematical reasoning amongst other things) about it, but rather there divergent emotional traits. This is consistent with other findings in cognitive science, such as those from psychologist Jonathan Haidt, that show that moral views are often the product of immediate emotional responses followed by post-hoc rationalization [5].
tuco wrote:I hope nobody minds but the following came up on my search for "overpopulation" just minutes ago:
edit: On topic, I think its interesting "modest attempt", often explored in Star Trek for example where Spock, with his impeccable logic, does not always figure it out so to say. At least that is what we are told in Star Trek.
Boyle wrote:
That people without emotional content cannot make decisions, regardless of their intelligence, gives reason to believe the opposite. To me, this is like saying that the world cannot be real because some people are blind/deaf and are unable to navigate as effectively as those that can see and hear. Taking away a human's faculties and then declaring that some facet of the world doesn't exist is premature (in this case: morality).
Boyle wrote:By losing emotional content, you've lost value assignments. It's perfectly in line, then, that someone without the ability to assign values to one scenario over another (such as choosing a cereal over another) would lose the ability to navigate choice. So why is this an issue for moral realism? You seem to take issue with the word "rationality" in that SEP definition up there. I put it to you that rationality can, and almost always does, include emotions and decisions derived thereof as a natural consequence of how we reason. Indeed, you've even provided some nice evidence for this. Why do you assume rationality includes no emotions given how we make decisions?
Boyle wrote:Our means to reason is based by our ability to take in the external world and make sense of it using internal templates. In such a case where someone is incapable of seeing/anticipating other people's emotions it stands to reason that they are functioning using faulty sensations and as such are not as capable of navigating the world as they could be.
Paul Staggerman wrote:Boyle wrote:
That people without emotional content cannot make decisions, regardless of their intelligence, gives reason to believe the opposite. To me, this is like saying that the world cannot be real because some people are blind/deaf and are unable to navigate as effectively as those that can see and hear. Taking away a human's faculties and then declaring that some facet of the world doesn't exist is premature (in this case: morality).
I am not saying morality doesn't exist in this post or that it isn't real, I am trying to say that if there is a morality it needs emotions.
Paul Staggerman wrote:Boyle wrote:Our means to reason is based by our ability to take in the external world and make sense of it using internal templates. In such a case where someone is incapable of seeing/anticipating other people's emotions it stands to reason that they are functioning using faulty sensations and as such are not as capable of navigating the world as they could be.
I cite a study in the op about how sociopaths are still capable of assessing the emotions of others in a study, what some would call "cognitive empathy".
The results emphasize that although psychopathic patients show no deficits in reasoning about other people's emotion if an explicit evaluation is demanded, they use divergent neural processing strategies that are related to more rational, outcome-oriented processes.
CdesignProponentsist wrote:The closest thing that I can think of to an objective morality is the golden rule. Beyond that, everything is a subjective cultural construct.
Boyle wrote:
Going along a different route without that empathetic mirroring seems to be what inhibits their ability to respond appropriately to others.
Paul Staggerman wrote:Boyle wrote:
Going along a different route without that empathetic mirroring seems to be what inhibits their ability to respond appropriately to others.
It is well known that sociopaths can respond to others appropriately and fake certain emotions and even manipulate others. Plus, I fail to see how this constitutes faulty sensory experience.Especially when you yourself said you were wrong in saying sociopaths can't perceive the emotions of others. Those 2 claims seem to contradict each other.
igorfrankensteen wrote: In any case, I would suggest putting the concern differently: in order to make decisions about outcomes, you need to be able to VALUE one outcome over another. It doesn't have to be an emotional reaction per se.
Boyle wrote:igorfrankensteen wrote: In any case, I would suggest putting the concern differently: in order to make decisions about outcomes, you need to be able to VALUE one outcome over another. It doesn't have to be an emotional reaction per se.
How do you assign different values to different outcomes without appealing to any emotional needs?
Pebble wrote:The requirement for emotional insight and empathy for 'moral' behaviour is not evidence for objective morality - rather the opposite. What this shows is that we 'learn' our morals from observing others and being aware of their needs/desires.
igorfrankensteen wrote:My sense of this is that there is, as I often find in such efforts, an almost anxious sense of worry that a mode of conducting oneself CAN'T be established without resorting to an appeal to magic.
Overall, that is what I personally think the whole 'moral realism' movement is driven by.
Pebble wrote:The requirement for emotional insight and empathy for 'moral' behaviour is not evidence for objective morality - rather the opposite. What this shows is that we 'learn' our morals from observing others and being aware of their needs/desires.
Rumraket wrote:I don't see how it makes sense to say that there exists objective moral truthes merely because there's bunch of moral subjects with common neurophysiological reasons for acting in similar ways.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest