Moral Psychology

Question 1

What are the arguments for: What are we rightly blamed for?

Answer 1

1. Determinism
2. Strawson
3. Sher

Question 2

What does Determinism seem to entail?

Answer 2

We have no free will.
- If we have no free will, it seems as though we cannot be responsible for things.
- This is because we often think responsibility is tied to control.
- If one is not responsible, then one is not blameworthy.

Question 3

What does Strawson try and show?

Answer 3

Even if determinism is true, this does not make our moral practices obsolete.

Question 4

What are reactive attitudes for Strawson?

Answer 4

Responses to goodwill, ill-will, and indifference.
- Such as resentment.
- A natural part of being human.
- A core aspect of our relationships.

Question 5

What does Strawson distinguish between, and why?

Answer 5

Participant Stance: Treating something as a moral agent (reactive attitudes)

Objective Stance: Treating something as an object of study (no reactive attitudes).

This is because it distinguished those that we feel resentment towards and those we do not.

Question 6

What is important about the participant stance?

Answer 6

It is by having such a stance that allows us to have an interpersonal relationship.

Question 7

What is important about interpersonal relationships?

Answer 7

They are something we desire, it is beneficial for us in various ways.
- This is why we have reactive attitudes towards them, either positively or negatively.
- People we can have interpersonal relationships with are those we hold responsible for their actions.

Question 8

Why do reactive attitudes surpass determinism?

Answer 8

It is a core part of our human nature.
- It is inconceivable to rid ourselves of them.
- This is because of the desire for interpersonal relationships.
- What is rational is what is best for humanity.
- Interpersonal relationships are best for humanity.

Question 9

What is moral responsibility grounded in for Strawson?

Answer 9

The role it has in our interpersonal relationships and reactive attitudes.

Question 10

In what context could we drop the notion of moral responsibility for Strawson?

Answer 10

If it became undesirable for humanity

Question 11

What does Sher try and show?

Answer 11

That blame and control are less closely linked than normally perceived.

Question 12

What is the traditional view of blame?

Answer 12

Blame bad acts but not bad traits because people are not in control of their bad traits.

Question 13

What is Sher’s problem with the traditional view of blame?

Answer 13

We should be able to blame bad traits.
- We should blame people for things that they are intimately linked enough for it to reflect badly on them.
- Action is intimately linked to deliberation.
- Deliberation is closely linked to bad traits.
- Therefore, if we are to blame bad acts, we should also blame bad traits.

Question 14

What blameworthiness must be?

Answer 14

Of moral failings.

Question 15

What is your conclusion for: What are we rightly blamed for?

Answer 15

Strawson shows why we should disregard the metaphysical issues when thinking of morality.
- Sher shows that we are right to blame traits.

Question 16

What is you claim against Strawson and why?

Answer 16

Strawson’s participant stance seems to be more like a percieved ability stance.
– This does not differentiate between humans and animals or machine.

This is because if we were to consider an alient just like ourselves, then we would hold them morally accountable (participant stance).

Question 17

What is the different kinds of perceived ability according to dos Reis?

Answer 17

Instinctual: the automatic stance taken when meeting apparently sufficiently similar to you.

Reconsidered: the percieved ability once thought about it properly

Question 18

What kind of perceived ability is necessary for them to be morally accountable according to dos Reis?

Answer 18

Reconsidered because we often get our instinctual impressions incorrect.

Question 19

Does projection have any place in Strawson’s theory?

Answer 19

No, it is a metaphysical claim, not an epistemological one

Question 20

What are the arguments for: What reasons do we have to trust?

Answer 20

1. Background
2. Hawley
3. Holton
4. Reliance

Question 21

What is the background for the debate of trust?

Answer 21

The intuitive idea is that trust = reliance + x.

X is either: motive based or non-motive based.

• Motive based: Cognitive attitude, expression.
• Non motive based: an affective attitude.

Question 22

What is Hawley’s motive-based account?

Answer 22

To trust is to believe that they have a commitment to do something and to rely on them to do it.

• Holton claims this is belief-about-motive-based.
• Commitment is like an obligation.

Question 23

What is Hawley arguing against?

Answer 23

Other motive based accounts.
- Such as Baier’s goodwill.
- Goodwill is not necessary for trust (example?)

Question 24

What are the problems with Hawley’s account?

Answer 24

Not sufficient.
- A professor does not need to trust a student but may believe that they have a commitment and rely on them.

Conflict between trust and belief.
- We choose to trust.
- We do not seem to choose to believe.

Question 25

What is Holton’s notion of trust?

Answer 25

Reliance + reactive attitudes

Question 26

What does incorporating reactive attitudes mean for Holton?

Answer 26

It means treating the trustee as a person which is responsible for their actions.
- We have these attitudes because they benefit us.

Question 27

In what way is trusting beneficial for Holton?

Answer 27

Trusting overall is beneficial because it benefits us in working together and interpersonal relationships.

Question 28

How does Holton’s theory link to testimony?

Answer 28

We need to trust people’s testimony as a way to acquire knowledge.

Question 29

When is it rational to trust according to Holton?

Answer 29

There is always uncertainty, but it is rational to take the risk due to the benefits being so high.
- We choose to take on this risk.

Question 30

Do we need reliance for trust?

Answer 30

Friendships seem to not require reliance.
Reliance is seen as instrumental but friendship is not.

• Perhaps all interpersonal relationships are instrumental.
• One does not value friendship itself, but the gains of friendship.

Question 31

What would seem to be the case if we valued friendship intrinsically?

Answer 31

We would maximise the number of friendships, as we do not care about what we get from it.

Question 32

What is your conclusion for: What are we rightly blamed for?

Answer 32

Agree with Holton’s claim of reactive atittudes.
- It is rational if it is a risk worthwhile of the benefits.
- We seem to have no issue with reliance as part of trust.