Most of us would like to believe that when we say something is right or wrong, we are using our powers of reason alone. But Greene argues that our emotions also play a powerful role in our moral judgments, triggering instinctive responses that are the product of millions of years of evolution. "A lot of our deeply felt moral convictions may be quirks of our evolutionary history," he says.
[Hume said] people call an act good not because they rationally determine it to be so, but because it makes them feel good. They call an act bad because it fills them with disgust.
[Greene:] "[In contrast, when we do logical thinking] We're using our brains [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex] to make decisions about things that evolution hasn't wired us up for"
..."When you have this understanding, you have a bit of distance between yourself and your gut reaction," he says. "You may not abandon your core values, but it makes you a more reasonable person. Instead of saying, 'I am just right and you are just nuts,' you say, 'This is what I care about, and we have a conflict of interest we have to work around.'"
In his weblog The Loom, Zimmer applies this info to Bush's Council on Bioethics:[Hume said] people call an act good not because they rationally determine it to be so, but because it makes them feel good. They call an act bad because it fills them with disgust.
[Greene:] "[In contrast, when we do logical thinking] We're using our brains [dorsolateral prefrontal cortex] to make decisions about things that evolution hasn't wired us up for"
..."When you have this understanding, you have a bit of distance between yourself and your gut reaction," he says. "You may not abandon your core values, but it makes you a more reasonable person. Instead of saying, 'I am just right and you are just nuts,' you say, 'This is what I care about, and we have a conflict of interest we have to work around.'"
Kass [the head] has written in the past about how we should base our moral judgments in part on what he calls "the wisdom of repugnance." In other words, the feeling you get in your bones that something is wrong is a reliable guide to what really is wrong. The Council on Bioethics ...have declared that happiness exists to let us recognize what is good in life, while real anger and sadness reveal to us what is evil and unjust.
...Jonathan Cohen...suggested that we need to understand that moral intuitions are not automatically moral truths--particularly when they're applied to complicated ethical quandaries about science and technology that our ancestors never had to confront.
and a commenter draws an excellent parallel.
...Jonathan Cohen...suggested that we need to understand that moral intuitions are not automatically moral truths--particularly when they're applied to complicated ethical quandaries about science and technology that our ancestors never had to confront.
Update: it also fits with this from Alterman:
A professor once asked my class to assume he could prove that more lives would be saved if we took all the money spent on coal mine rescue equipment and spent it on preventing cave-ins in the first place. Would we do it? The answer was no -- "there's a peculiar kind of horror" (his phrase) of being buried alive with no hope of rescue. There's a not-happy medium between pure utilitarianism in what research we fund and the need to "do something" and provide some hope.
It also sheds light on thePuzzle of Imaginative Resistance-
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.