CLPS0020: Introduction to Cognitive Science Moral Reasoning 1 CLPS0020: Introduction to Cognitive Science Professor Dave Sobel Fall 2016

What is Moral Reasoning Thinking about what’s right and wrong Subjective vs. Objective “right” If I want to go get a coffee, and I walk in the wrong direction towards the coffeeshop, I’m mistaken, but am I amoral? Role of Intentions If I give false directions because I have a false belief, am I acting amorally? If I give false directions because I intend to deceive, am I acting amorally? Disposition vs. Situation If I give false directions because I intend to deceive, am I acting amorally? Vs. am I amoral? Side note: Fundamental Attribution Error

Theories of Moral Reasoning Kolhberg’s Stages Human beings develop through a series of stages of moral reasoning. Six stages (3 levels) Usually we don’t regress (once you get to a stage, you don’t go back) Not everyone reaches the highest stage

Level 1: Preconventional Stage 1) Driven by obedience and punishment Actions are performed to avoid punishment Actions are wrong because the actor was punished Example: Child cleans room to avoid being punished for not cleaning room Stage 2) Moral Relativism: Quid pro Quo Actions are performed to get rewards Actions are wrong if they don’t benefit me. Example: Child cleans room to get allowance Note lack of perspective taking and understanding of others or society

Level 2: Conventional Stage 3: Self Intentions There are social standards and I want to obey them. Not acting bad is good. Moral reasoning is still centered on self – self’s relation to society Ex: I don’t break the law because I want to be perceived in a good manner (reputation) Stage 4: Moral Authority Actions are driving by laws and conventions, govern by society, not individual Actions are wrong if they violate laws/conventions Morality is dictated by external forces Ex: I don’t break the law because laws are designed to prevent others from getting harmed

Level 3: Post Conventional Stage 5: Social Contracts The world has a set of moralities. Different individuals hold different values, opinions, and rights. Actions are seen as wrong if they violate a particular culture’s values, not necessary one’s own values or one’s own culture’s values. Stage 6: Universal Ethic Morality is based on abstract concept of justice Society’s Laws are only relevant if they are just. Moral transgressions are defined by justice, not society. Moral judgments about others’ actions are made based on whether one takes another’s perspective. Most people are at Stage 4-5.

An alternative Kohlberg’s stages are rational and reasoned. An alternate: Haidt (2001) Moral reasoning is based on quick, automatic, (perceptual) judgments on valence (good vs. bad) “The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail” Many morally repellent acts (e.g., incest) are seen as morally repellent, even if we cannot explain why Akin to disgust:

What are Dual Systems? Intuitive System Rational System Fast and effortless Runs automatically Encapsulated No attention required (not affected by distraction) Rational System Slow and effortful Can be controlled Consciously accessed (can generate reasons) Requires attentional resources (affected by distraction)

How does this work? Environment triggers two processes Automatic one and controlled rational one. Automatic one also affects rational process Rational process generates a response

Example: Trolleyology There is a runaway trolley going down the tracks. In the path of the trolley, there are five people tied up and unable to move. You are standing next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, that there is one person on the different track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the most ethical choice?

Trolley Problems Lots of people say pull the lever (90%) Number reduced if the one person is a family member Same problem – but this time, you can push a fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley, killing the man Many fewer people push the man (except when he tied up the five people to kill them) Why? Causing bodily harm causes a more negative affective (Automatic) response. Harder to reason in the conflict.

Paxton and Greene Suggest that there are different kinds of moral dilemmas, which activate different reasoning systems Deontic judgments are about rights and obligations – driven primarily by intuition Utilitarian judgments are about the greater good, helping others, and being fair – driven primarily by rational system Supported by neuroscientific evidence of different neural systems responsible for different kinds of problems.

Universal Morality? Haidt et al. (2006): Universal Concepts of Morality Harm/Care Fairness/reciprocity Ingroup loyalty Authority/respect Purity/sanctity Seem to be agreed on by all cultures (at least those investigated), but there are individual differences within any culture E.g., liberal/conservatives in US – everyone agrees on harm and fairness. But liberals and conservatives disagree on the loyalty, respect for authority and purity Ex: Sex vs. Food

CLPS0020: Introduction to Cognitive Science Moral Reasoning 2 CLPS0020: Introduction to Cognitive Science Professor Dave Sobel Fall 2016

How do we develop morality? Helping and Fairness were two of Haidt’s universal moral principles Today: Developmental origins of Helping and Fairness

Innate Preferences for Helpers Hamlin et al. (2007) 6-month-olds are habituated to this event and this event Given choice between helper and hinderer – choose to touch helper (preference for helper) Numerous follow ups (albeit some controversial) Another Example Some evidence that this is all about associations, not evidence for morality.

Spontaneous Helping? Numerous demonstrations by Warneken & Tomasello (2006) of 18-month-olds (and Chimps!) engaging in spontaneous helping Book Video Clothespin Video Even cases in which adult doesn’t notice the accident (Video - offline) Even in cases in which it costs them to help (although this isn’t until children are 4)

Fairness Like helping, children seem to have early preferences for fairness. 15-month-olds: Prefer to look at fair distributions Prefer to interact with fair distributors (Schmidt & Sommerville, 2011) Brownell et al. (2009) showed that 24-month-olds would distribute resources fairly, giving themselves and another equal amounts over just giving themselves that amount.

Spontaneous Sharing Warneken & Tomasello (2013) 2-3-year-olds will be more likely to share a windfall gain with another person if that person shared or collaborated with them previously Chernyak & Sobel (2016) 3-4-year-olds take intentions into account. Children collaborate with a confederate. The confederate intentionally or accidentally does something naughty, and is “punished” by an experimenter, who gives a windfall to the child. The confederate protests, and the question is whether children spontaneous share

Children share more with accidental confederate than intentional one

Unfair Distributions When resources are distributed unfairly, there are two possibilities Unfair distribution in one’s favor (advantageous inequity) Unfair distribution not in one’s favor (disadvantageous inequity) Also, note, these could involve child as participant or be third party Latter not studied often How do children resolve these?

Inequity Game (Blake & McAullife, 2011) Child plays against another child. Distributions are made. Child either accepts (each gets what’s coming), or rejects (each gets nothing)

General Results Children as young as 3 reject disadvantageous inequities (Called Disadvantageous inequity aversion) Culturally Universal (Blake et al., 2015) Rejection of advantageous inequity (Advantageous Inequity Aversion, AIA) develops between ages 6-8 Not culturally universal

Development of AIA Six- to 8-year-olds will throw away a resource to not create an inequity Both first and third party situations (Shaw & Olsen, 2008) Socially mandated (Heck et al., 2016) When licensed to create an inequity, 3-5-year-olds will do so more often it benefits them than when the inequity is between two third parties Mediated by emotional knowledge (consistent with general ideas posited by Killen et al., 2011)

Conclusions Human beings are social creatures Helping is innate Controversial But optimistic! Certain low level notions of fairness are innate But also optimistic! Development of broader concepts of fairness follows Kohlberg stages in certain ways (AIA is certainly NOT preconventional).