Lecture 18: Moral Universals

Question 1

extended phenotype

Answer 1

regular consequences of behavior that naturally selection intends

that is, it includes “all the effects that a gene causes on the world.”

(i.e. spider’s web)

one organism’s extended phenotype can influence another organism’s behavior
(i.e parasite infected snail)

accomplishing your own goals by exploiting other people’s behavior

Question 2

retribution:

Answer 2

because you harmed me, you’re gonna have to suffer
adaptive, emotional reaction

question at the mechanistic level*** is it relying on reasoning or evolution

Question 3

deterence:

Answer 3

if I punish you, I’m going to influence your behavior in the future

punishment as a reasoned response

Question 4

criminal justice system to deter wrong doing
(if a crime is hard to detect… you should)

Answer 4

if a crime is hard to detect, you should punish it more harshly than if its easy to detect

(need to convince potential criminals that the crime is not worth doing)

punish people more if you can publicize their punishment (to deter not only perpetrator but also the public)

Question 5

do people actually care about deterence or retribution?

Answer 5

people think they care about deterence, but in reality, they actually care about retributive responses

Question 6

ultimatum game ($1 to $10 or nothing)

Answer 6

anonymous interaction
player 1 receives $10
give player 2 a certain amount
but if they reject, nobody gets shit

rational: offer $1and accept ($1 > $0)

if I offer you some amount of money that is less than you think is fair, you’ll burn all this shit to the ground (revenge/retribution behavior)

Question 7

accidents in the lab experiment (dice and shit)

Answer 7

if I chose a selfish die and you got all the money, you would give me some money back

If I chose a die that was supposed to send all the money to you, but all the money ended up going to me <- people are going to punish me for that

intentions matter to some degree, but outcomes more than anything else

specific about punishment that makes it sensitive to outcomes and not intentions

Question 8

punishment: ultimate explanation and proximate explanation

explicit theories and behavior

Answer 8

ultimate: deterence (want to change somebody else’s behavior)

proximate: retribution (want to punish somebody else bc we feel a type of way)

theories: deterence and retribution
behavior: mostly retribution

Question 9

combat kill rates dramatically lower than training

Answer 9

we don’t wanna kill people tf

the resistance to harm is strongest when it’s “up close and personal”

Question 10

trolley problem (dual process morality)

Answer 10

push case (push one person) (personal)
switch case (use a switch to kill 1 person v 5 people) (impersonal)

controlled processes: do the math (save more people 5 v 21)

automatic emotional processes: don’t harm other people especialy when it’s up close and personal

Question 11

let’s sacrifice 1 person in order to save 5 people. what lights up?

Answer 11

DLPFC <- responsible for controlled cognition/ ultilitarian

Question 12

brain damage and trolley problem (VmPFC)

Answer 12

ventromedial prefrontal cortex damage <- thinks more about emotional responses //impairments in moral judgements

think it’s more moral to personally push someone than no brain damage

Question 13

how do psychopaths respond to trolley problem

Answer 13

they don’t gaf

Question 14

moral confabulation

Answer 14

we make up reasons for why something is wrong or not
justifications for moral judgement that might not be accurate