4 ms·

I don't think this is depressing, for the reasons that you find it depressing. This says "on reasoning alone". I wouldn't trust someone who didn't reference th

I don't think this is depressing, for the reasons that you find it depressing. This says "on reasoning alone". I wouldn't trust someone who didn't reference their instincts/emotions for moral decisions. There are studies on people who function on reasoning alone, and they are, unsurprisingly not very good at moral decisions. And I'm not just talking psychopaths, but also people who's emotional centers have been damaged. This is unsurprising to me, because our emotions and our morality are both part of the system that makes us social creatures (e.g. empathy). Morality is essentially a meta-structure that helps hold societies together. Besides, there's a lot of evidence now that our "reasoning", especially on moral matters, is more often than not, a post hoc justification of our emotional instinct. There are some nice explanations of this by people like Jonathan Haidt.

throwawaymath 8y ago
> There are studies on people who function on reasoning alone, and they are, unsurprisingly not very good at moral decisions > Besides, there's a lot of evidence now that our "reasoning", especially on moral matters, is more often than not, a post hoc justification of our emotional instinct. Can you give an example of these studies? I’m interested in how they assign a qualifier of “good” or “bad” to various moral decisions. Are subjects not consistent in their moral decisions, or do their decisions disagree with the moral priors of the researchers? How do the researchers establish that their moral decisions are correct? That’s the essence of ethics itself. Unless these studies are exceptionally careful in their setup, I think it’s probable they’re begging the question implicitly. A more reserved conclusion might be that people with less empathy, in the aggregate, consistently make moral decisions which are different from those who have more empathy. But I think this conclusion might be kind of vacuous to anyone who has read a philosophy book or two on ethics.
- ycombinete 8y ago
  I don't have any specific studies to mention, I am afraid, as I've only had them through third party sources. They will be in the books Waking Up by Sam Harris, The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, and The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. The last two more specifically.

throwawaymath 8y ago

> There are studies on people who function on reasoning alone, and they are, unsurprisingly not very good at moral decisions > Besides, there's a lot of evidence now that our "reasoning", especially on moral matters, is more often than not, a post hoc justification of our emotional instinct. Can you give an example of these studies? I’m interested in how they assign a qualifier of “good” or “bad” to various moral decisions. Are subjects not consistent in their moral decisions, or do their decisions disagree with the moral priors of the researchers? How do the researchers establish that their moral decisions are correct? That’s the essence of ethics itself. Unless these studies are exceptionally careful in their setup, I think it’s probable they’re begging the question implicitly. A more reserved conclusion might be that people with less empathy, in the aggregate, consistently make moral decisions which are different from those who have more empathy. But I think this conclusion might be kind of vacuous to anyone who has read a philosophy book or two on ethics.

ycombinete 8y ago
I don't have any specific studies to mention, I am afraid, as I've only had them through third party sources. They will be in the books Waking Up by Sam Harris, The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker, and The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt. The last two more specifically.