Singer+(WK7)

__**Summary:**__

Philosophers have considered: "Whether ethics is objectively true, or relative to culture, or entirely subjective; whether human beings are naturally good; and whether ethics comes from nature or from culture [...] getting the answers right, they believe, will enable us to live in a better way" (p. 333).

On morality as natural, although slightly variable: "Our biology does not prescribe the specific forms our morality takes. There are cultural variations in human morality, as even Herodotus knew. Nevertheless, it seems likely that all these different forms are the outgrowth of behavior that exists in social animals, and is the result of the usual evolutionary processes of natural selection. Morality is a natural phenomenon. No myths are required to explain its existence" (p. 337).

"In the light of the best scientific understanding of ethics, we face a choice. We can take the view that our moral intuitions and judgments are and always will be emotionally based intuitive responses, and reason can do no more than build the best possible case for a decision already made on nonrational grounds [...] alternatively, we might attempt the ambitious task of separating those moral judgments that we owe to our evolutionary and cultural history, from those that have a rational basis" (p. 351).

__**Quotes/responses:**__ "A standard way of arguing against a normative ethical theory is to show that in some circumstances the theory leads to judgements that are contrary to our common moral intuitions" (P.331).

"challenge the prevailing orthodoxy, calling into question the assumptions that people unthinkingly make." (p.332)

"we should be ready to challenge the intuitions that first come to mind when we are asked about a moral issue." (p. 332)

"Plato himself was evidently not content with the account he offered in Protagoras, for in his dialogues he discusses several other possibilities. In the Republic alone, we have Thrasymachus’s skeptical claim that the strong, acting in their own interests, impose morality on the weak"(p. 333)

"We now understand that the genes that lead to the forms of love Hume describes are more likely to survive and spread among social mammals than genes that do not lead to preferences for one's relatives that are typically proportional to the proximity of the relationship" (p.334). Affinity for relatives is most likely to survive genetically.

Hume: "there is no such passion in human minds as the love of mankind, merely as such, independent of personal qualities, of services, or of relation to ourself" (p. 334). Love mankind overall, unconditionally.

Hume on justice: " 'the sense of justice and injustice is not derived from nature, but arises artificially, though necessarily from education, and human conventions'. He adds that though the rules of justice are artificial, this does not mean that they are arbitrary. Justice is, for Hume, a human invention, though one that is 'obvious and absolutely necessary' " (p. 335).
 * There are certain ethical codes humans should strive to live by in order to live comfortably as social animals. Justice, Compassion, Respect, Integrity are some basic values necessary for communal living.

"In some circumstances, there could be selective pressures that favor self-sacrifice for the benefit of the group. There would also, of course, be countervailing pressures favoring self-interested actions that do not benefit the group. If, however, the group develops a culture that rewards those who risk their own interests in order to benefit the group, and punishes those who do not, the cost-benefit ratio would be tilted so as to make benefiting the group more likely to be compatible with leaving offspring in the next generation" (p. 335)

"But justice is not, at least not in its origins, a human invention. We can find forms of it in our closer nonhuman relatives. A monkey will present its back to another monkey, who will pick out parasites; after a time the roles will be reversed. A monkey that fails to return the favor is likely to be attacked, or scorned in the future. Such reciprocity will pay off, in evolutionary terms, as long as the costs of helping are less than the benefits of being helped and as long as animals will not gain in the long run by ‘‘cheating’’ – that is to say, by receiving favors without returning them" (p. 336).
 * I feel like this is a simple truth, but it is a serious one. When it comes to helping others and a sense of justice being tied to it there is no denying it. For some, I feel like this 'justice' could be an emotional justice in that helping others creates a world 'justice' in that people do not share all the same equalities and helping others creates a sense of equality, for example, donating to charities for people who have nothing when you have plenty to give (creates a start of balance in your own mind). I also looked at this quote and thought of how doing wrong by someone has consequences just as the monkeys have their own set of consequences and being able to see this take place in other species helps people to see it is not a quality specific to species.

"Haidt has assembled an impressive body of evidence for the view that moral judgments in a variety of areas are typically the outcome of quick, almost automatic, intuitive responses" (p. 338).

"When people were asked to make judgments in the 'personal' cases, parts of their brains associated with emotional activity were more active than when they were asked to make judgments in 'impersonal' cases" (p. 341).

"More significantly, those who came to the conclusion that it would be right to act in ways that involve a personal violation, but minimize harm overall – for example, those who say that it would be right to 16 Greene, The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality, and What to Do About It, push the stranger off the footbridge – took longer to form their judgment than those who said it would be wrong to do so. When Greene looked more closely at the brain activity of these subjects who say ‘‘yes’’ to personal violations that minimize overall harm, he found that they show more activity in parts of the brain associated with cognitive activity than those who say ‘‘no’’ to such actions" (p. 341-342).

“where there is no inherently plausible theory that perfectly matches our initial moral judgments, we should modify either theory, or the judgments, until we have an equilibrium between the two.” “In science, we generally accept the theory that best fits the data, but sometimes, if the theory is inherently plausible, we may be prepared to accept it even if it does not fit all the data”(pg 344).

"In everyday life, as Haidt points out, our reasoning is likely to be nothing more than a rationalization for our intuitive responses - as Haidt puts it, the emotional dog is wagging its rational tail" (p. 350).

__**Vocabulary:**__ Reflective Equilibrium:

Normative Moral Theory: "is not trying to explain our common moral intuitions. It might reject all of them, and still be superior to other normative theories that better matched our moral judgments. For a normative moral theory is not an attempt to answer the question ‘Why do we think as we do about moral questions?’ Even without an evolutionary understanding of ethics, it is obvious that the question ‘‘Why do we think as we do about moral questions?’’ may require a historical, rather than a philosophical, investigation" (p. 345)

Scientific Theory: "seeks to explain the existence of data that are about a world ‘out there' that we are trying to explain (p. 345).

__**Questions/statements:**__

What are some of you considering about morality? Do you think we are innately good people with the best intentions, that possibly over time lose this 'good' due to negative outcomes occurring Or, is that we learn to be good as time moves forth?

I found it interesting that after stating on the bottom of page 332 and top of 333: "Such mythical accounts, bestowing a divine origin on morality, are common." He listed examples like Zeus feeling sorry for humans and giving them a moral sense and a capacity for law and justice and then adding "of course" God giving Moses the Ten Commandments as another example. I know this is pretty touchy to go into but i'd argue that the Ten Commandments were not God "bestowing" moral ethics, but rather man already had moral sense and God was giving them a set of rules to follow because they had been straying. So that posses another question in a sense, or maybe an answer to something in this article, In the Bible it says that man has strayed from this path of good and tells of a few times where God had to intervene and give them new reasons to do good, so is that sort of, a validation that we are in fact "innately good people with the best intentions, that possible over time we lose his 'good' due to negative outcomes occuring"

Question morality. It just sounds like a dicey thing to do, made for a very interesting article.

__**What to talk with other groups about:**__ The main idea and question is "whether humans are naturally good; and whether ethics comes from nature or from culture " (p. 333). Singer ebbs on the evolutionary side.

"In the following pages I argue that recent research in neuroscience gives us new and powerful reasons for taking a critical stance toward common intuitions. But I will begin by placing this research in the context of our long search for the origins and nature of morality."(p 332)

He summarized some of the new knowledge of ethics we now possess, knowledge that was not available to any of the great philosophers, such as: Mencius, Aristotle, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, and David Hume. Then he talked about what normative signiﬁcance this new knowledge has. What, if anything, should it contribute to our debate over how we ought to act?(p333)