Click here and press the right key for the next slide.
(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)
also ...
Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)
Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)
Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)
Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts
‘the central phenomena are moral emotions and intuitions.’
(Haidt, 2008, p. 65)
Q: What do adult humans compute that enables their moral intuitions to track moral attributes (such as wrongness)?
Hypothesis:
They rely on the ‘affect heuristic’: ‘if thinking about an act [...] makes you feel bad [...], then judge that it is morally wrong’.
Implication 1: ‘if moral intuitions result from heuristics, [... philosophers] must stop claiming direct insight into moral properties’
Implication 2: Should we trust moral intuitions? ‘Just as non-moral heuristics lack reliability in unusual situations, so do moral intuitions’ (Sinnott-Armstrong et al., 2010, p. 268)
-- relevance: defending consequentialism
‘ethical philosophers intuit the deontological canons of morality by consulting the emotive centers of their own hypothalamic-limbic system ... Only by interpreting the activity of the emotive centers as a biological adaptation can the meaning of the canons be deciphered’
(Wilson, 1975, p. 563 quoted in Haidt, 2008, p. 68).
But is the Hypothesis true?