{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

PH100 Lecture Notes

Proposes that the mere fact that friends allies and

Info iconThis preview shows pages 28–30. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: proposes that the mere fact that friends, allies, and acquaintances have made a moral judgment exerts a direct influence on others, even if no reasoned persuasion is used” (819) • e.g., you friend says “incest is wrong” → you think that incest is disgusting • A's reasoning → B's intuition “These four links form the core of the social intuitionist model. The core of the model gives moral reasoning a causal role in moral judgment but only when reasoning runs through other people. It is hypothesized that people rarely override their initial intuitive judgments just by reasoning privately to themselves because reasoning is rarely used to question one's own attitude or beliefs” (819) 5. THE REASONED JUDGMENT LINK: Sometimes people may reason their way to a judgment and override their initial intuition. These are instance in which reasoning causes moral judgments. • Haidt: “..such reasoning is hypothesized to be rare, occurring primarily in cases in which the initial intuition is weak and processing capacity is high” (819) • e.g., I initially thought that incest is wrong but after thinking through the issue carefully, I now see that it is not. • A's moral reasoning → A's moral judgements 6. PRIVATE REFLECTION LINK: Once you starting reasoning, you have another intuition that you didn't have at first. • A's moral reasoning → A's intuition Four reasons to doubt the rationalist model 1. The dual process problem • When a person makes judgments there are two processing systems at work: the intuitive system and the reasoning system • These two systems are in parallel they can reach different conclusions • So far, researchers have focused on the reasoning system when studying moral judgments • However, there is evidence in support of the view that moral judgments can be the product of intuitive processes • Automatic evaluations. Non-moral judgments. ◦ e.g., perceiving a snake as threatening. We do not first see a snake and then infer that it is threatening. (“fight or flight”) • Automatic moral judgments. Moral judgments. ◦ Evidence: ▪ “People form first impressions at first sight..and the impressions that they form from observing a 'thin slice' of behavior are almost identical to the impressions they form from much longer and more leisurely observation and deliberation” (820) ( link 1) ▪ Halo effect: positive evaluations of non-moral traits (e.g., attractiveness) lead to moral belief (e.g., virtuous or kind) ( link 1) ▪ Stereotypes ( link 1) ▪ Persuasion: “The mere fact that your friend has made a judgment affects your own intuitions directly” (820) ( link 4) November 13, 2012: Moral Psychology and the Social Intuitionist Model (cont.) 2. Motivated reasoning problem • If the dual process model is an appropriate model for moral judgments, then what is the relationship between the two processes?...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page28 / 40

proposes that the mere fact that friends allies and...

This preview shows document pages 28 - 30. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon bookmark
Ask a homework question - tutors are online