Morality and Evolutionary Psychology Flashcards
what are the three premises of Darwinism evolution, and what does it mean for a trait to be adaptive
what is evolutionary psychology
the species show variation in traits
some traits are heritable
traits that are more likely to help survival will be inherited to their offsprings, which is called adaptation
an adaptive trait = a trait that is selected to be inherited due to the fact that it is useful for survival (provide fitness)
proposes that the mind is formed by evolved psychological mechanisms.
domain specific
formed to solve questions that our ancestors faced (e.g., disease avoidance, mating etc)
what is the problem altruism and what is inclusive fitness (definition, 2 types of fitness and how does akin differ)
problem of altruism = if mechanisms are designed to benefit their own survive, shouldn’t all behavior to be selfish?
Inclusive fitness: capacity for genetic information to spread in a population
direct: number of offsprings
indirect: others that share similar one’s genes such as akin and relatives
not all akins are the same. The closer we are, the more help we are willing to offer (supported by experiments on squirrels and humans)
What are the relationships between parents and sons (step-parents vs parents, father vs mother (paternal uncertainty) and grandparental uncertainty)
presence of step-parent at home is 40-100 times more likely to treat the child with abuse
paternal uncertainty suggests the idea that the mother is usually closer to the child, as they are more certain that the child is their’s, compared to the father
grandparental certainty
hypotheses are:
maternal grandmother is the closest to the grandson, since she is certain that the daughter is her’s and the grand child is her daughter’s
meanwhile the paternal grandfather has the least affection to the grand child as the uncertainty is the highest
**
the level of affection that the paternal grandmother depends. if the paternal grandmother has a daughter (certain), and the daughter has a grand child = the paternal grandmother is more likely to devote time to that grand child instead
what is the moral/conventional distinction, and what is the rebuttal to it
asked kids and adults a situation, then asked questions:
seriousness, punishable, global, authority independent, how is the wrongness explained
signature moral responses
serious, punishable, global, authority independent (otherwise = signature conventional responses)
the defining factor = whether the stimulus causes harm/injustice (if so = signature moral)
however, rebutted by Haidt
that even if no harm caused and no injustice, some behaviour still seen as immoral (authority dependent and global)
what are the elements of the two attempts by Schweder ad Haidt
Schweder’s attempt:
autonomy (harm and right)
community (hierarchical): fails to carry out the duties within a community
divinity
Haidt’s attempt:
harm
fairness
authority
ingroup
purity
showed that the demographic factors matter
for instance, very liberal (focuses on harm and fairness) vs conservatives (focuses on purity, ingroup and authority)
what was the big debate on moral judgement, how did the moral reasoning camp start falling, and what was the alternative that Haidt propose (+dual-processing model)
big debate
moral reasoning (system 2) or moral intuition guided mainly by emotions and intuition (system 1)
the moral reasoning camp started to fall in the 90s, when Haidt proposed the social Intuitionist Model
experiment
showed participants with situations > when they said immoral > asked for reasons > keep falsifying their explanations
showed that even if the participants ran out of explanations, they were unwilling to revise their positions
therefore showed dumbfounding (emotional-based moral reasoning)
Social Intuitionist Model
Stimulus > intuition > moral decision (judgement) > moral rationalisation (reasoning)
dual-processing model
that reasoning and emotion (intuition) are competing
how can the dual-processing model explain the switch-bridge dilemma
why are people more willing to trigger the switch but not pushing someone
suggested that
the reason processing pushes us toward the utilitarian approach (kill one save more)
the emotional processing pushes us towards the deontological approach (not killing anyone)
showed that since the footbridge = involves direct contact > more negative emotions triggered > deontological approach
but since the switch = less direct contact > less negative emotions triggered (pull the trigger)
indeed, showed that if the negative emotion is removed (or just the person is in a more positive mood > they are more likely to take the utilitarian approach) (Saturday Night Live show vs documentary)
how did researchers (Laham, Simpson, and Fiske) integrate the relational model and moral judgements
relational models influence moral judgement
behaviors that violate different types moral components are perceived differently in severity in different relationships
for instance
behaviors that violates loyalty is perceived to be more severe in the communal share model (violating unity) than the market pricing models (violating proportionality)
unity, hierarchy, equality, proportionality
what is the moral circle and how does inclusion-exclusion mindsets alter the size of the moral circle
moral circle =the premise that includes things that humans think should be protected by moral concerns
inclusion = circling/selecting items that should be included
exclusion = crossing/excluding items that should not be included
laham showed that
by using inclusion method, the moral circle of the person is temporarily shrinked, and also more negative perceptions to outgroups
by using exclusion method, the moral circle of the person is temporarily enlarged, and also more positive perceptions to outgroup
