Comments on: Moral Instinct

Comment on Moral Instinct by: Ian Lance Taylor

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 17:27:56 +0000

Well, of course, it was me doing the equating. But I think the point is still correct: they don’t think they’re corrupt. They think that our typical attitude is inexplicable, honoring an agreement with a stranger over obligations to family.

Comment on Moral Instinct by: fche

Mon, 21 Jan 2008 02:39:27 +0000

> That is, it’s not corrupt; it’s actually the right thing to do. Just as we would say
> that it’s right to speed to get to the hospital, or to break the window of a drugstore
> to get the defibrillator needed to save somebody having a heart attack

If members of some society actually equivocate an ongoing misdirection of
funds with one-time emergency maneuvers, well, no wonder they don’t
think they’re corrupt.

Comment on Moral Instinct by: Ian Lance Taylor

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:15:36 +0000

I think your example and choice of words may be predetermining your answer. I think that any society would say that it is wrong to mug a little girl even if nobody would find out. But the argument in the article is that some societies would say that it is right to hire your brother-in-law even the company rules prohibit it. That is, it’s not corrupt; it’s actually the right thing to do. Just as we would say that it’s right to speed to get to the hospital, or to break the window of a drugstore to get the defibrillator needed to save somebody having a heart attack.

Comment on Moral Instinct by: fche

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:29:55 +0000

> fche: That is reasonable. So, let’s say your employer has a rule forbidding you from hiring your
> brother-in-law. Suppose that if you do hire him, the chances of your employer finding out are
> small. Do you follow the rules? Or do you hire him anyhow?

Well, that form of the question is little different than … “would you mug that little girl
if no one was likely to find out?”, and is not the sort of hypothetical that’s worthwhile
answering in the abstract.

I believe arriving at this point largely moots your initial point. There may well be societal
patterns as to which sorts of corruption people casually tolerate, but it’s still corruption.

Comment on Moral Instinct by: Ian Lance Taylor

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:49:55 +0000

ncm: I actually find it quite difficult to answer questions like “if you flip the switch, you can change the train from killing five people to killing one person.” It’s easy for me to say “it is better that one person die than that five die.” That is, I know how to answer the abstract question. But I am much less certain about how to act in the unlikely hypothetical scenario.

I’m not sure what kind of child abuse you are talking about when you talk about officers of the court. I think there are some forms of child abuse which most people find repugnant, though of course they do certainly happen. There are other actions sometimes described as child abuse which I think a sizeable percentage of people do not find to be repugnant even if they agree they should be forbidden–e.g., corporal punishment, or sex between a teenager and a young adult.

Comment on Moral Instinct by: Ian Lance Taylor

Fri, 18 Jan 2008 06:42:53 +0000

fche: That is reasonable. So, let’s say your employer has a rule forbidding you from hiring your brother-in-law. Suppose that if you do hire him, the chances of your employer finding out are small. Do you follow the rules? Or do you hire him anyhow?

Comment on Moral Instinct by: fche

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:00:59 +0000

> fche: You’re not answer the question I’m asking. I’m not asking what will
> happen in a given situation, or why. And I’m not saying that one choice is
> right and one is wrong. I’m asking which feels more right to you, personally.

But a question like that cannot exist in a vacuum. The hypothetical scenario
needs to include the *other* moral obligations already in effect at the point of
possibly hiring a family member, such as to follow one’s employer’s policies
and to follow the law. So to ask “which one feels right” is tantamount to asking
“Which of your many moral/ethical obligations would you prefer to sacrifice?”.

Comment on Moral Instinct by: ncm

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 07:51:39 +0000

I found almost all of them easy to answer, that one in particular. I think it’s not because I’m a moral genius or idiot, it’s because the examples presented just aren’t very good.

My point about officers of the court was that if these things were actually as universally, viscerally repugnant as implied, they wouldn’t be permitted as a matter of official policy, and, presuming they were unexpected consequences of official policy, they’d have a hard time finding people willing to carry them out.

Comment on Moral Instinct by: Ian Lance Taylor

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:28:48 +0000

ncm: I have to agree that the example of throwing somebody off a bridge is rather far-fetched. I personally find all of those hypothetical questions to be very difficult to answer, and that one is much worse than average.

I don’t think that anybody would argue that people in a position of power are ethical paragons.

Comment on Moral Instinct by: Ian Lance Taylor

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 05:19:56 +0000

fche: You’re not answer the question I’m asking. I’m not asking what will happen in a given situation, or why. And I’m not saying that one choice is right and one is wrong. I’m asking which feels more right to you, personally. You can say that you don’ t know, that you don’t have any intuition about it. What Pinker is saying is that most people do have an answer to the question–one answer seems right to them, and the other answer seems wrong–and that the answer differs in different societies.

It’s not begging the question. The question is not “why do people believe what they do.” The question is “do people in different societies have different ethical beliefs.”