Moral Psychology Flashcards
What are the arguments for: What are we rightly blamed for?
- Determinism
- Strawson
- Sher
What does Determinism seem to entail?
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.
What does Strawson try and show?
Even if determinism is true, this does not make our moral practices obsolete.
What are reactive attitudes for Strawson?
Responses to goodwill, ill-will, and indifference.
- Such as resentment.
- A natural part of being human.
- A core aspect of our relationships.
What does Strawson distinguish between, and why?
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.
What is important about the participant stance?
It is by having such a stance that allows us to have an interpersonal relationship.
What is important about interpersonal relationships?
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.
Why do reactive attitudes surpass determinism?
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.
What is moral responsibility grounded in for Strawson?
The role it has in our interpersonal relationships and reactive attitudes.
In what context could we drop the notion of moral responsibility for Strawson?
If it became undesirable for humanity
What does Sher try and show?
That blame and control are less closely linked than normally perceived.
What is the traditional view of blame?
Blame bad acts but not bad traits because people are not in control of their bad traits.
What is Sher’s problem with the traditional view of blame?
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.
What blameworthiness must be?
Of moral failings.
What is your conclusion for: What are we rightly blamed for?
Strawson shows why we should disregard the metaphysical issues when thinking of morality.
- Sher shows that we are right to blame traits.
What is you claim against Strawson and why?
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).
What is the different kinds of perceived ability according to dos Reis?
Instinctual: the automatic stance taken when meeting apparently sufficiently similar to you.
Reconsidered: the percieved ability once thought about it properly
What kind of perceived ability is necessary for them to be morally accountable according to dos Reis?
Reconsidered because we often get our instinctual impressions incorrect.
Does projection have any place in Strawson’s theory?
No, it is a metaphysical claim, not an epistemological one
What are the arguments for: What reasons do we have to trust?
- Background
- Hawley
- Holton
- Reliance
What is the background for the debate of trust?
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.
What is Hawley’s motive-based account?
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.
What is Hawley arguing against?
Other motive based accounts.
- Such as Baier’s goodwill.
- Goodwill is not necessary for trust (example?)
What are the problems with Hawley’s account?
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.