Reasoning and Rationalizing

[Botnst]

I cut the following paragraphs from an article in the NY Times by Steven Pinker.

Enjoy.

Bot

..................................................................

It’s not just the content of our moral judgments that is often questionable, but the way we arrive at them. We like to think that when we have a conviction, there are good reasons that drove us to adopt it. That is why an older approach to moral psychology, led by Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg, tried to document the lines of reasoning that guided people to moral conclusions. But consider these situations, originally devised by the psychologist Jonathan Haidt:

Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?

A woman is cleaning out her closet and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.

A family’s dog is killed by a car in front of their house. They heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cook it and eat it for dinner.

Most people immediately declare that these acts are wrong and then grope to justify why they are wrong. It’s not so easy. In the case of Julie and Mark, people raise the possibility of children with birth defects, but they are reminded that the couple were diligent about contraception. They suggest that the siblings will be emotionally hurt, but the story makes it clear that they weren’t. They submit that the act would offend the community, but then recall that it was kept a secret. Eventually many people admit, “I don’t know, I can’t explain it, I just know it’s wrong.” People don’t generally engage in moral reasoning, Haidt argues, but moral rationalization: they begin with the conclusion, coughed up by an unconscious emotion, and then work backward to a plausible justification.

The gap between people’s convictions and their justifications is also on display in the favorite new sandbox for moral psychologists, a thought experiment devised by the philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson called the Trolley Problem. On your morning walk, you see a trolley car hurtling down the track, the conductor slumped over the controls. In the path of the trolley are five men working on the track, oblivious to the danger. You are standing at a fork in the track and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley onto a spur, saving the five men. Unfortunately, the trolley would then run over a single worker who is laboring on the spur. Is it permissible to throw the switch, killing one man to save five? Almost everyone says “yes.”

Consider now a different scene. You are on a bridge overlooking the tracks and have spotted the runaway trolley bearing down on the five workers. Now the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a heavy object in its path. And the only heavy object within reach is a fat man standing next to you. Should you throw the man off the bridge? Both dilemmas present you with the option of sacrificing one life to save five, and so, by the utilitarian standard of what would result in the greatest good for the greatest number, the two dilemmas are morally equivalent. But most people don’t see it that way: though they would pull the switch in the first dilemma, they would not heave the fat man in the second. When pressed for a reason, they can’t come up with anything coherent, though moral philosophers haven’t had an easy time coming up with a relevant difference, either.

[Mistress]

it's just wrong.

[kerry]

Yes, these are interesting. In the first three examples I was never inclined to think any of them were wrong. I can imagine that some people would be disturbed if they learned about this, but I didn't 'feel' they were wrong. If he had been less politically aware, he might have described a homosexual sex act and added it to the list.

I think the trolley example is most interesting. I think it has something to do with how we construct our own sense of 'agency'. If we can tell ourselves that we are not the agents of harm, we can do it. Apparently, diverting the train is not 'initiated' by us but picking someone up and throwing them on the track is.
I think this is the exact issue behind the Catholic acceptance of 'natural' birth control and rejection of 'artificial' birth control.

I can think of clear examples where I believe killing another person would be the right thing to do (a quadraplegic suffering and willing suicide but unable to end his or her own life) but I don't think I could actually overcome that 'agency' problem and end the person's life.

James Rachels came up with a interesting example back in the 70's to try to elucidate the differences between passive and active euthanasia. He imagined a relative sneaking into a bathroom to drown a child and gain the child's inheritance. In one instance he does exactly that, and kills the child. In the second instance, just as he enters the bathroom, the child slips in the tub, hits his or her head and slides under water unconscious. The relative does nothing to stop the drowning. Rachels thinks the relative is equally morally guilty in both instances. One is active murder, the other is passive murder. Both were wrong. Rachels thought the distinction the example showed that if passive euthanasia was ok, the active euthanasia should be also.

[t walgamuth]

Interesting thoughts.

As a person who thinks a lot like an Engineer a lot of the time I immediately thought "what are they thinking, a fat man wouldn't stop a runaway trolley!".

Tom W

[Botnst]

Where is the pay-out?

What I mean is this: What would cause you the least long-term psychological discomfort or greatest psychological reward?

B

[300EVIL]

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Interesting thoughts.

As a person who thinks a lot like an Engineer a lot of the time I immediately thought "what are they thinking, a fat man wouldn't stop a runaway trolley!".

Tom W

Yeah, same here. As for the trolley and the switch track, I'd just switch the track right in between the sets of wheels and derail the trolley.

[Brian Carlton]

Originally Posted by Botnst

Consider now a different scene. You are on a bridge overlooking the tracks and have spotted the runaway trolley bearing down on the five workers. Now the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a heavy object in its path. And the only heavy object within reach is a fat man standing next to you. Should you throw the man off the bridge? Both dilemmas present you with the option of sacrificing one life to save five, and so, by the utilitarian standard of what would result in the greatest good for the greatest number, the two dilemmas are morally equivalent. But most people don’t see it that way: though they would pull the switch in the first dilemma, they would not heave the fat man in the second. When pressed for a reason, they can’t come up with anything coherent, though moral philosophers haven’t had an easy time coming up with a relevant difference, either.

This is an unrealistic scenario for a couple of reasons:

1) No individual can have the confidence necessary to instantly make the decision to end the life of the fat man by tossing him in front of the trolley. Such a conclusion can never be reached in the limited time available.

2) Even if the individual had the confidence, this belief must be false, by definition, because the individual cannot possibly know if the fat man will stop the train.

In the initial scenario, it's a clear choice.........one man.........or five men........no mitigating circumstances.

So, those that find the second scenario morally wrong are probably correct.

[OldPokey]

A man fat enough to stop a trolley would need Superman to throw him in the way of the speeding trolley. And Superman would also be strong enough just to stop the trolley himself. Yes - I am also an engineer.

[Botnst]

I like Kerry's substitution of the homosexuality for incest. In both cases I cannot separate my own taboos from morality. In both cases the idea is too repulsive to me. I don't mean to suggest that homosexuals are repulsive -- I'm am absolutely okay with homosexuality. It just ain't my thang. Nor is incest. Nor do I see homosexuality as a threat to society.

But with incest, in complete contrast with homosexuality, my taboo is so overwhelming that I don't have a problem imposing that bit on society -- there "should" be a social taboo against brother-sister sex, even if both are perfectly sterile. Why? Because I think that individuals have a herd responsibility. On some few issues the value of the herd is greater than the freedom of the individual. In this case, sibling incest, the burden of procreation is placed on society. Even worse is parent (or step-parent) and child incest.

That oughtta get the conversation flowing!

B

[Brian Carlton]

Originally Posted by Botnst

But with incest, in complete contrast with homosexuality, my taboo is so overwhelming that I don't have a problem imposing that bit on society -- there "should" be a social taboo against brother-sister sex, even if both are perfectly sterile. Why? Because I think that individuals have a herd responsibility. On some few issues the value of the herd is greater than the freedom of the individual. In this case, sibling incest, the burden of procreation is placed on society. Even worse is parent (or step-parent) and child incest.

That oughtta get the conversation flowing!

B

Nope.......not buying the "herd responsibility".

No harm to either individual. No harm to society. No issue.

[A264172]

...

Julie is traveling in France on summer vacation from college with her brother Mark. One night they decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Julie was already taking birth-control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy the sex but decide not to do it again. They keep the night as a special secret, which makes them feel closer to each other. What do you think about that — was it O.K. for them to make love?

....

I don't think anything about it because they kept it a secret.

[kerry]

I can't find Jacoby's original column, but here's a link to a later column about a couple imprisoned for incest:

http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/28/hypocrisy_on_adult_consent/

[Brian Carlton]

Originally Posted by kerry

I can't find Jacoby's original column, but here's a link to a later column about a couple imprisoned for incest:

http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/28/hypocrisy_on_adult_consent/

Eight years hard time for incest..........that's bull$hit.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by kerry

I can't find Jacoby's original column, but here's a link to a later column about a couple imprisoned for incest:

http://boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/28/hypocrisy_on_adult_consent/

Jailing them is far more wrong. I don't think that laws are necessary or prudent for every human behavior, favored or unfavored. Quite the opposite. I think society would be better served by having less laws. But that does not mean that I think morality is unnecessary or imprudent: Quite the opposite. I would submit that the most free society is one with strong common morality and weak laws.

In the special case of sibling incest, it would have a strong societal prohibition and no laws in that regard. Why should society frown on incest? For the obvious reason that NO birth control method short of abstinence or sterilization is 100% certain. Progeny from siblings is a near guarantee of a permanent burden on society. Pursuit of personal sexual gratification at the potential long-term expense of society (not to mention the gene pool) is narcissistic.

B

[t walgamuth]

In the book Hawaii, Michener describes the practice of marrying your sibling as practiced amongst the royalty of Hawaii traditionally. It is stated there that you have either exceptionally fine children or defective ones. They would simply drown the defective ones at birth.

I don't remember what he said the odds were...it vaguely seems like 50 50.

When I was an early pubescent teen I remember trying to sneak a peek at my older sisters, but I cannot remember ever having any notions about doing more than that.

The taboos are strong, but in the example you cite, it is difficult to see the harm, morally. I think such actions would be emotionally "playing with fire" though, perhaps.

Tom W