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
why is moral dumbfounding relevant?
‘linguistics--a domain in which ordinary human beings are also famously dumbfounded.’
Dwyer 2009, p. 279
‘Moral Dumbfounding suggests two desiderata for an adequate account of moral judgment; namely, it:
(a) must not entail what is patently false, namely, that such judgments are the conclusions of explicitly represented syllogisms, one or more premises of which are moral principles, that ordinary folk can articulate, and
(b) must accommodate subjects’ grasp of the structure of the scenes they evaluate.’
‘The Linguistic Analogy, which [... holds that [ethical] judgments are reflective of the structure of the Moral Faculty, satisfies these desiderata.’
Dwyer 2009, p. 294
How well does the evidence support Dwyer’s position?
(Never trust a philospoher!)
Complication: Dwyer cites ‘Haidt’s (2001) study’ but this is actually a review paper.
Dwyer probably intends to refer to Haidt et al, 2000.
From the abstract:
‘It was hypothesized that participants’ judgments
would be highly consistent with their reasoning on the moral reasoning dilemma, but that
judgment would separate from reason and follow intuition in the other four tasks.’
‘Moral Dumbfounding suggests two desiderata for an adequate account of moral judgment; namely, it:
(a) must not entail what is patently false, namely, that such judgments are the conclusions of explicitly represented syllogisms, one or more premises of which are moral principles, that ordinary folk can articulate, and
(b) must accommodate subjects’ grasp of the structure of the scenes they evaluate.’
‘The Linguistic Analogy, which [... holds that [ethical] judgments are reflective of the structure of the Moral Faculty, satisfies these desiderata.’
Dwyer 2009, p. 294
‘Moral Dumbfounding suggests two desiderata for an adequate account of moral judgment; namely, it:
(a) must not entail what is patently false, namely, that such judgments are the conclusions of explicitly represented syllogisms, one or more premises of which are moral principles, that ordinary folk can articulate, and
(b) must accommodate subjects’ grasp of the structure of the scenes they evaluate.’
‘The Linguistic Analogy, which [... holds that [ethical] judgments are reflective of the structure of the Moral Faculty, satisfies these desiderata.’
Dwyer 2009, p. 294
?
What does moral dumbfounding actually show?
My view.
Moral dumbfounding shows that some ethical judgements are not consequences of reasoning from known principles
Other phenomena (e.g. moral disengagement) indicate that some ethical judgements are consequences of reasoning from known principles
puzzle
Why are moral intuitions sometimes, but not always, a consequence of reasoning from known principles?