This is an outdated version published on 2022-06-10. Read the most recent version.

Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Intuition, Reason, and Responsibility

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss19pp85-106

Keywords:

responsibility, blame, blameworthiness, intuition, reason, reasons-responsiveness, control, ecological control, moral ecology, scaffolding, moral psychology, dual process, Jonathan Haidt

Abstract

According to one highly influential approach to moral responsibility, human beings are responsible (eligible to be praised or blamed) for what they do because they are responsive to reasons (Fischer & Ravizza 1998). However, this amounts to a descriptive assumption about human beings that may not be borne out by the empirical research. According to a recent trend in moral psychology (Haidt 2001), most human judgment is caused by fast, nonconscious, and intuitive processes, rather than explicit, conscious deliberation about one’s reasons. And when humans do engage in explicit deliberation, it primarily serves to provide post hoc rationalization of their intuitive judgments (confabulation). If this is correct, it is tempting to conclude that most of our judgments—and the actions we perform on their basis—are not genuine responses to reasons. The reasons-responsiveness approach would thus appear to be committed to the implausible conclusion that we are not responsible for very much after all, including, most problematically, our implicit biases. I argue that the reasons-responsiveness approach can avoid this conclusion by showing three things: (1) that affective and intuitive processes can be reasons-responsive; (2) that the responsiveness of those processes can be bolstered by the agent’s environment; and (3) that practices like blame are one of the key ways in which human beings are attuned to reasons over time. I argue that the first and second of these items, despite their initial plausibility, are insufficient on their own to explain why humans can be held accountable for things like implicit biases, and that the way forward is to appreciate what holding each other accountable does—i.e., its effects.

References

Clark, A. (2007). Soft selves and ecological control. In D. Spurrett, D. Ross, H. Kincaid, L. Stephens (Eds.), Distributed Cognition and the Will, pp. 101-122. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Clarke, S. (2008). SIM and the City: Rationalism in Psychology and Philosophy and Haidt’s Account of Moral Judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 21(6), 799-820. https://10.1080/09515080802513250

Crockett, M. J. (2013). Models of Morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 363-366. https://10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.005

Cushman, F. (2013). Action, outcome, and value a dual-system framework for morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3), 273-292. https://10.1177/1088868313495594

Fischer, J. M., Ravizza, M. (1998). Responsibility and Control: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Frankfurt, H. (1969). Alternative Possibilities and Moral Responsibility. Journal of Philosophy, 66(23), 829-839. https://10.2307/2023833

Frankish, K. (2010). Dual process and Dual-System Theories of Reasoning. Philosophy Compass, 5(10), 914-926. https://10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00330.x

Greene, J. (2017). The rat-a-gorical imperative: Moral intuition and the limits of affective learning. Cognition 167, 66-77. https://10.1016/j.cognition.2017.03.004

Greene, J. D. (2007). The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology, Volume 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Disease, and Development, pp. 35-79. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Haidt, J. (2001). The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834. https://10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814

Holroyd, J., Kelly, D. (2016). Implicit Bias, Character, and Control. In A. Masala, J. Webber (eds.), From Personaliy to Virtue: Essays on the Philosophy of Character, pp. 106-133. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697. https://10.1037/0003-066X.58.9.697

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Macmillan.

McGeer, V., Pettit, P. (2015). The Hard Problem of Responsibility. In D. Shoemaker (ed.), Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, Volume 3, pp. 160-188. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McKenna, M. (2013). Reasons-Responsiveness, Agents, and Mechanisms. In D. Shoemaker (ed.), Oxford Studies in Agency and Responsibility, Volume 1, pp. 151-183. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Railton, P. (2017). Moral Learning: Conceptual foundations and normative relevance. Cognition, 167, 172-190. https://10.1016/j.cognition.2016.08.015

Railton, P. (2014). The affective dog and its rational tale: Intuition and attunement. Ethics, 124(4), 813–859.

Richerson, P., y Boyd, R. (2005). Not by Genes Alone: How Culture Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Smith, M. (2003). Rational Capacities, or: How to Distinguish Recklessness, Weakness, and Compulsion. In S. Stroud, C. Tappolet (Eds.), Weakness of Will and Practical Irrationality, pp. 17–38. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Stanley, M. L., Yin, S., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019). A reason-based explanation for moral dumbfounding. Judgment and Decision Making, 14(2), 120-129. URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/2200763447?accountid=13360

Vargas, M. (2013). Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Washington, N., Kelly, D. (2016). Who’s Responsible for This? In M. Brownstein, J. Saul (eds.) Implicit Bias and Philosophy, Volume 2: Moral Responsibility, Structural Injustice, and Ethics, pp. 11-36. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wason, P. C., J. St. B. T. Evans (1975). Dual Processes in Reasoning? Cognition, 3(2), 141-54. https://10.1016/0010-0277(74)90017-1

Downloads

Published

2022-05-30 — Updated on 2022-06-10

Versions

How to Cite

Setman, S. (2022). Teaching an Old Dog New Tricks: Intuition, Reason, and Responsibility. Revista De Humanidades De Valparaíso, (19), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss19pp85-106 (Original work published May 30, 2022)

Issue

Section

Monographic Section

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.