Moral pitfalls

[ana]

Recently Sott published an interesting article:
Are Utilitarians Psychopaths?

Which is based on a brief article of Daniel M. Bartels and David A. Pizarro:
The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemas

It basically deals with the incompetence of the methods by which moral judgments are evaluated, taking into account that people with psychopathic traits do easily pick up utilitarian responses, highly regarded in these tests as moral evidence.

I’ve been thinking about the proposed moral dilemmas , take for example this one from the Sott article:

Imagine that you're on a small ship. A fire breaks out, the ship sinks, and you and five others pile into an inflatable liferaft. A storm gathers, the seas get rough, and the little liferaft starts to fill with water. Unless you do something, everyone will drown! One man is injured, and it looks like he might die either way. Would you throw him overboard?

Ok, It seems that:

According to the study only about 10% of people, make the rational, utilitarian choice (in this case, killing one man to save five); the other 90% choose to abide by moral rules (here, "Thou shalt not kill"), no matter the consequences.

Interestingly they say that the 90% based their decision on “moral rules (here, "Thou shalt not kill"), no matter the consequences” but is it true?

Well, when I read the proposed dilemma I got frustrated, not because I couldn’t see the utility and effectiveness of the “rational option” but because I was confronted with an extremely limited situation. One choice forced someone’s death and the other let things run their course with the subsequent death of all.

I think the main problem in evaluating the moral capacity of someone by proposing dilemmas with limited options, specially when the suffering of others or the life of others are “in your hands” is that it does not take into account that healthy humans beings seek the common good, never based on the survival of some at the expense of others and when confronted with this situations they get frustrated and helpless since the common well being of others can not be reached and so they choose to let things run their course.

They are confronting people with two options throwing the injured man overboard or let things run their course with the subsequent death of all, but, Are there more options for the above situation that our pollsters have overlooked and can save the lives of all who are in the liferaft?

Maybe, so that the liferaft does not sink a man who is not injured can leave it and remain swimming while someone grabs him by the hand, when he gets tired another one could cover his place and thus continuously. So that everyone have the opportunity to stay alive and the liferaft does not sink due to the weight of all.

What I am trying to convey is that I think human morality or conscience is to be found in the motivation for seeking solutions/options/possibilities for the common good and not in the forced choice of a moral pitfall.

Ok, the article got me thinking for some time and so far this is what I have concluded but maybe I'm missing something, so comments are welcome :)

Is morality to be found in forced choices with dead ends?

 

[Tigersoap]

For what it is worth, I think along the same line.
It seems that indeed such studies, at least the ones I read about, are limiting the possible answers and never allow a creative response based on the elements known. Life is rarely just in black and white.
edit: and when you're not in the actual situation, it's easier to rationalize certain answers because you think this and this about yourself but when it comes to a real life situation for which you haven't been prepared, everything changes osit.

 

[Tomiro]

I agree too, and I think that most moral dilemmas tend to artificially limit your choices down to only two, out of a number of options. Also reality does not come with any guarantees that you would be saved if you do this, or not, if you do something else. Or alternatively an artificial scenario is created, that would almost never take place in reality, in order to simulate some kind of "pure" moral dilemma or exercise in game theory.

The again, in my opinion it's hard (if not impossible) to know exactly what would happen in a similar situation, since extreme situations seem to bring out extreme sides of people. Both "noble" and less so.

 

[go2]

I think the main problem in evaluating the moral capacity of someone by proposing dilemmas with limited options, specially when the suffering of others or the life of others are “in your hands” is that it does not take into account that healthy humans beings seek the common good, never based on the survival of some at the expense of others and when confronted with this situations they get frustrated and helpless since the common well being of others can not be reached and so they choose to let things run their course.
…………

What I am trying to convey is that I think human morality or conscience is to be found in the motivation for seeking solutions/options/possibilities for the common good and not in the forced choice of a moral pitfall.

What is moral capacity? It is the capacity to follow the programmed rules of a particular civilization. A man or a woman who is an authoritarian follower would score high moral capacity.

Morality and conscience are not equivalent. Morality is artificial buffers separating a man from the potential to have a conscience. We gain a conscience to the extent we remove the buffers concealing the internal contradictions and evasions.

The psychologists and their subjects are normal mechanical-men. Mechanical morality is the terror of the situation of men who think they are doing good because they obey moral laws. Mechanical-man does not even know he is a machine and he studies machines as if they are real men.

The interesting question is, “What would a man with conscience do in the life raft dilemma?”

There is no good or evil in the choice to throw the dying man overboard. It is a matter of survival. Survival is the business of the motor-instinctive center of man. The psychopath has a motor-instinctive center and would throw the dying man over board without thought or sorrow. We let psychopaths do our survival work, because we are moral-machines, rejecting the responsibility of being real men and women balancing and coordinating instinctive-motor, feeling, and thinking functions when we make life and death decisions.

Ana, there is a passage on morality and conscience in ISOTM page 155-159 that may shed light on our frustration with psychological studies by “sorry scientists of new formation” whose feeling centers are atrophied. The feeling center is the center of relationship responsibility in its many facets and essential for one to have conscience. Who needs morality if we have conscience?

 

[Possibility of Being]

I think the main problem in evaluating the moral capacity of someone by proposing dilemmas with limited options, specially when the suffering of others or the life of others are “in your hands” is that it does not take into account that healthy humans beings seek the common good, never based on the survival of some at the expense of others and when confronted with this situations they get frustrated and helpless since the common well being of others can not be reached and so they choose to let things run their course.
…………

What I am trying to convey is that I think human morality or conscience is to be found in the motivation for seeking solutions/options/possibilities for the common good and not in the forced choice of a moral pitfall.

Firstly, presenting and dealing with a 'moral dilemma' in such a way as it is done in those articles and studies does not take into account 'the third force' and secondly, is basically deterministic in its nature. It's assuming that we live in an a priori determined world, and that man can know outcomes of their choices; or even if they don't know, the future is written in stone anyway, even if in multiple versions/branches. But is it true? The Universe seems to respond in its own way to choices we make. Moreover, its response to the same choice can differ depending on whether that choice was made consciously or mechanically. Assuming otherwise, i.e. that we know the outcome of our choice is not only restricting of possibilities and limiting ourselves to two options only (yes-no, good-bad), but it is being conceited and arrogant towards the Universe's creativity and wisdom, OSIT.

 

[Buddy]

Hi Ana. :)

Recently Sott published an interesting article:
Are Utilitarians Psychopaths?

Which is based on a brief article of Daniel M. Bartels and David A. Pizarro:
The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemas

It basically deals with the incompetence of the methods by which moral judgments are evaluated, taking into account that people with psychopathic traits do easily pick up utilitarian responses, highly regarded in these tests as moral evidence.

I agree with their assessment. I also noticed the researchers haven't linked their findings with any other emerging parts of the picture. While I agree that "people with psychopathic traits do easily pick up utilitarian responses", a skilled manipulation of 'normal' people's affective states has been shown to increase utilitarian responses as well (see below).

I’ve been thinking about the proposed moral dilemmas , take for example this one from the Sott article:

Imagine that you're on a small ship. A fire breaks out, the ship sinks, and you and five others pile into an inflatable liferaft. A storm gathers, the seas get rough, and the little liferaft starts to fill with water. Unless you do something, everyone will drown! One man is injured, and it looks like he might die either way. Would you throw him overboard?

Ok, It seems that:

According to the study only about 10% of people, make the rational, utilitarian choice (in this case, killing one man to save five); the other 90% choose to abide by moral rules (here, "Thou shalt not kill"), no matter the consequences.

Interestingly they say that the 90% based their decision on “moral rules (here, "Thou shalt not kill"), no matter the consequences” but is it true?

To me, the important point dealing with the "other 90%" is not whether or what "rules" were used, but that they simply refused to kill an innocent someone (and here, I mean "innocent" in the context of the scenario). Personally, I don't think there needs to be any left-brain story or "reason" to NOT do harm to someone. Just my thoughts, though.

Well, when I read the proposed dilemma I got frustrated, not because I couldn’t see the utility and effectiveness of the “rational option” but because I was confronted with an extremely limited situation.

It appears to me, the "rational, utilitarian choice" is just the "logical" choice as seen from the limited left-brain perspective. I see your frustration as coming from the deliberate setup of a "limited situation". Limited, perhaps, by the researchers ignorance or an attempt to influence your thinking?

One choice forced someone’s death and the other let things run their course with the subsequent death of all.

Not really. The scenario is imaginary and the reader is not meant to critique the set up, OSIT.

I have noticed there seems to be a particular liking for the "lost at sea/terror at sea" scenarios in some of these "moral dilemmas". What some people don't seem to realize is that there are many documented situations similar to these experimental set ups that have actually happened. The fact that so many have survived in some way, despite the disadvantages, and without anyone having to kill anyone else, is what provides the basis for the statistics that allow the imaginary scenario to exist in the first place, OSIT.

IOW, because so many people have survived, there already exists a distinction whereby we might see the forced assumption that "the reader MUST make a choice".

Fool that I am, I have experienced too many instances of being under a pressure and having a solution arrive "just in time", that my faith in something higher cannot be dismissed so easily.

I think the main problem in evaluating the moral capacity of someone by proposing dilemmas with limited options, specially when the suffering of others or the life of others are “in your hands” is that it does not take into account that healthy humans beings seek the common good, never based on the survival of some at the expense of others and when confronted with this situations they get frustrated and helpless since the common well being of others can not be reached and so they choose to let things run their course.

They are confronting people with two options throwing the injured man overboard or let things run their course with the subsequent death of all, but, Are there more options for the above situation that our pollsters have overlooked and can save the lives of all who are in the liferaft?

Maybe, so that the liferaft does not sink a man who is not injured can leave it and remain swimming while someone grabs him by the hand, when he gets tired another one could cover his place and thus continuously. So that everyone have the opportunity to stay alive and the liferaft does not sink due to the weight of all.

Good ideas. I don't think anyone even needs to pre-think (in a deductive manner) other options in order to make the "right" choice. I think there is always a universe of possibilities at every moment and just because I can't wrap my head around them doesn't mean they don't exist.

What I am trying to convey is that I think human morality or conscience is to be found in the motivation for seeking solutions/options/possibilities for the common good and not in the forced choice of a moral pitfall.

I agree.

Ok, the article got me thinking for some time and so far this is what I have concluded but maybe I'm missing something, so comments are welcome :)

Is morality to be found in forced choices with dead ends?

I don't think so. I even noticed that I dislike "morality" and "forced" and "dead" in the same sentence. :)


Related info:

From the "brief article" you mentioned:

These results, we believe, give rise to an important methodological concern: namely, that the methods widely used as a yardstick for determining optimal morality (i.e., assessing responses to moral dilemmas that pit the death of one vs. the death of many) may be tracking what many would regard as its opposite—a muted aversion to causing a person’s death.
_http://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/mcgrawp/PDF/BartelsPizarro.2011.pdf

I tend to agree with this.


Reference from above:

Skilled manipulation of individuals’ affective states can shape their moral judgments
Manipulations of Emotional Context Shape Moral Judgment:

The online version of this article can be found at:
_http://pss.sagepub.com/content/17/6/476
_http://pss.sagepub.com/content/17/6/476.full.pdf

Or here's a two page Short Report:
_http://daviddesteno.com/page5/files/Valdesolo.DeSteno.2006.pdf

...and the conclusion:

These findings demonstrate that the causal efficacy of emotion in guiding moral judgment does not reside solely in responses evoked by the considered dilemma, but also resides in the affective characteristics of the environment. Whether such an infuence optimizes or biases the resulting decision depends on the relevance of the extraneous affective cues to the dilemma at hand. What is clear, however, is that a skilled manipulation of individuals’ affective states can shape their moral judgments.

 

[Bresias]

From what I understand of this study, a "utilitarian" response implies fewer perceived choices available, a lack of flexibility and complexity (to include such things as sanctity of life). Where a fragile grasp on life equates with a reduced "right to life".

Is that what you mean by "third force"? (directed at Possibility of Being)

A non-pathological person has an ability to improvise on the spot. I have trouble seeing how such restricted options can reveal a person's inherent "moral sense".

 

[ana]

Ana, there is a passage on morality and conscience in ISOTM page 155-159 that may shed light on our frustration with psychological studies by “sorry scientists of new formation” whose feeling centers are atrophied. The feeling center is the center of relationship responsibility in its many facets and essential for one to have conscience. Who needs morality if we have conscience?

True, ISOTM explains well how morality as it is commonly understood is just the result of cultural programming:

The concept 'conscience' has nothing in common with the concept 'morality.
Conscience is a general and a permanent phenomenon. Conscience is the same for all men and conscience is possible only in the absence of 'buffers.

There is nothing general in the concept of 'morality.' Morality consists of buffers. There is no general morality. What is moral in China is immoral in Europe and what is moral in Europe is immoral in China. What is moral in Petersburg is immoral in the Caucasus. And what is moral in the Caucasus is immoral in Petersburg. What is moral in one class of society is immoral in another and vice versa. Morality is always and everywhere an artificial phenomenon.

Sure morality in this sense is just blind acceptance of the “wrong/right” direction of whatever aspect without the intervention of conscience, the same happens with common sense both have lost the meaning they have become legalistic notions such as duty and obligation, but I think real morality is the result of an inquirer conscience and not the means by which we achieve conscience. And sure, it can not be “tested” by those who have come to its superficial and legalistic meaning by following an external authority, either culture, gods, “connoisseurs”… because morality is only to be shared and understood in collinearity as a result of individual effort and deep questioning of conscience, osit.

 

[ana]

Thanks for the links Bud, It seems that you need to register to gain acces to those documents, I'll take some time to do so and read them :)

 

[Slow Motion Mary]

Okay, I'll be the oddball here. I don't see the lifeboat situation as a moral dilemma, nor do I see most situations as moral imperatives. Maybe I'm missing something here. While it's challenging and beneficial to hypothesize about what you would do in such a situation, what's required in an emergency situation is to instantly engage the brain to determine a solution using all available data. If solution one doesn't do it, try solution two, acknowledging that second by second, the data is changing. In fact, when I read the lifeboat situation I instantly put myself there and developed a strategy.

The injured person wouldn't be a factor for me because there are still five other people to bail water. I can imagine one of the five would be hysterically screaming, "We're all gonna die!", in which case, if you believe the movies, someone else would slap that person and scream, "Get a grip!" or "Snap out of it!". Slapping that person or dumping the injured person in the water wouldn't enter into my mind because my life motto has been "Do No Harm", and I tend to tune out such issues while developing my strategy, although they do factor in but they would be secondary issues to deal with. Again, it's an instantaneous mechanism that develops with "time".

There are a couple of good parallels: At the SOTT page there's an article about people who called 911 because they got "lost" in a corn maze. My guess is that the people failed to engage their brain and think and instead reacted based on their emotions. Sad to say, you can see that a lot in today's society--emotional reaction instead of rational thought.

Also, in one of the "Indiana Jones" movies, Indy is confronted by a bunch of guys waving sabers (possibly scimitars or machetes, but you get the idea) blocking his egress from an alley. While the movie watcher is thinking, "Oh, no! What's Indy going to do?", Indy turns to the camera (which is behind him), slightly shrugs, turns back around and shoots them with his gun. Because the movie watcher has seen Indy extricate himself from all types of situations without violence, the movie watcher forgets Indy has a gun. Good thing Indy didn't forget!

I reinforced thinking skills with my children. I showed them the "Taco Bell Syndrome": Same substance, different image (I can't say that now because they've expanded their menu.). Everything was a casual learning experience: TV shows, advertisements, real-life situations. One of my daughter's favorite shows when she was little (she is now 25) was "McGyver". When faced with tough situations now, she likes to tell me she's going to handle them with "a rubber chicken, a band-aid and a paperclip". My son (now age 30) liked to watch the Discovery and History channels, but he also was a fan of "Beavis and Butthead" on MTV. We watched together and one day our conversation went like this: "How old do you think those kids are? Fourteen, fifteen?" "Yeah, that's probably about right." "Where do you suppose their parents are?" "I don't know, but they were smart to leave them behind!" Now, in real life he wouldn't condone parents abandoning their children, but, while funny (to a fourteen-year-old), it was a cartoon and I thought his response appropriate. I have also watched my children respond quickly and appropriately to emergency situations, like tornados and car accidents, so I think something "stuck"!

Simply speaking, what your foundation was as a child is very important. My foundation was, "To think, therefore I am." Someone right now is probably thinking this sounds pretty unemotional, but it's not. I could expand, but I'm trying not to go off-topic, just trying to remind people that everything is not a "moral dilemma" and "thinking with a hammer" is your friend and a very useful tool.

 

[Buddy]

Hi Slow Motion Mary. Does "thinking with a hammer" refer to using the "whole being" capability, which includes emotional cognition, or does it refer mainly to all the "rational" possibilities you can come up with in the thinking center?

Interestingly, when I read the example to which you refer, I could practically feel the confinement of the author's understanding of people as "oppositional selfs". It's somewhat amazing how much energy can be generated and how many options present themselves to awareness when the ego steps out of the way, no? :)

 

[Happyville]

Imagine that you're on a small ship. A fire breaks out, the ship sinks, and you and five others pile into an inflatable liferaft. A storm gathers, the seas get rough, and the little life-raft starts to fill with water. Unless you do something, everyone will drown! One man is injured, and it looks like he might die either way. Would you throw him overboard?

This is very Interesting!

In the Bush v. Kerry election a question asked before the election:

If you were stuck in the land of Oz, who would you choose to get you home, the guy with all heart and no brains or the guy with all brains and no heart?

Most people chose "all heart and no brains" and the question successfully predicted the election.

In both scenarios a conclusion could be drawn that a "utilitarian" view losses in opinion polls, even though the outcomes may be detrimental to the greater good!

 

[cubbex]

Is morality to be found in forced choices with dead ends?

No, and I don't think someone said that.

In my personal opinion, morality is just what's "right", and applies different in every way. As Laura says, sometimes is good sometimes is bad.

If I was in that situation I would consider the decision of the dying person, maybe that person want's to sacrifice himself for others, or want to be on the boat and leave it to the course so at the end that person will die and us too. If that person wants to try, we'll need to work as a team. You know, the point is to take the opinion from the other 4, be considerate and the decision from everyone that will affect everyone.

There is nothing general in the concept of 'morality.' Morality consists of buffers. There is no general morality. What is moral in China is immoral in Europe and what is moral in Europe is immoral in China. What is moral in Petersburg is immoral in the Caucasus. And what is moral in the Caucasus is immoral in Petersburg. What is moral in one class of society is immoral in another and vice versa. Morality is always and everywhere an artificial phenomenon.

In this case I see morality as a way to create a social system.

 

[ana]

This is very Interesting!

In the Bush v. Kerry election a question asked before the election:

If you were stuck in the land of Oz, who would you choose to get you home, the guy with all heart and no brains or the guy with all brains and no heart?

Most people chose "all heart and no brains" and the question successfully predicted the election.

In both scenarios a conclusion could be drawn that a "utilitarian" view losses in opinion polls, even though the outcomes may be detrimental to the greater good!

Well, again it seems that it is imperative to choose between reason and emotion, what if we need both?

Emotions do not only give us specific knowledge regarding a situation, emotions also give us the impetus to act, they are motivational.

I also think emotion is precisely what gives moral character to decisions and not mere reasoning, and then emotions properly used can lead reason to go beyond the limits established so that new possibilities emerge.

I think reason can not increase without the power of emotion, reason alone is static, linear, deterministic and utilitarian.
On the other hand emotion alone can't evaluate carefully the choices we face, and can not handle the data and knowledge obtained.

So it seems we need to learn how to use both properly, until they form a good team so we can understand, see and then act consciously, don't you think?

 

[go2]

Well, again it seems that it is imperative to choose between reason and emotion, what if we need both?

Emotions do not only give us specific knowledge regarding a situation, emotions also give us the impetus to act, they are motivational.

I also think emotion is precisely what gives moral character to decisions and not mere reasoning, and then emotions properly used can lead reason to go beyond the limits established so that new possibilities emerge.

I think reason can not increase without the power of emotion, reason alone is static, linear, deterministic and utilitarian.
On the other hand emotion alone can't evaluate carefully the choices we face, and can not handle the data and knowledge obtained.

So it seems we need to learn how to use both properly, until they form a good team so we can understand, see and then act consciously, don't you think?

What about the instinctive-motor center of man? We have three potential centers of function. The thinking, feeling and instinctive-motor. Your being(team), which brings thinking and emotion to every event is still incomplete, falling short of the image of God. You describe a two-brained being, without a physically embodied participation.

The potential problem with a two-brained being with thinking and emotional participation is that instinctive-motor talents, honed over hundreds of millions of years of evolution by great Nature, are disregarded or considered sinful.

The Work aims at the full participation of three centers of function. It is not possible, in Fourth Way terms, for a two-brained being to be fully conscious.
A Real Man or Real Women is fully conscious as a result of thinking(reason), emotion(value of relationship of self and others), and instinctive-motor(survival) functions simultaneously participating in each and every event, including the life raft scenario. Each of the three functions focus attention on the event and share their particular associations with the other two centers. Three separate and equally valued ways of perceiving an event are brought together in a conscious man or woman.

Since a fully conscious three-brained being would be formed in the image of God with the potential for higher center participation, it is interesting to ask the question when one makes life-and-death decisions, "What would God do?" Then I know how far I am from becoming a Real Man.

Thanks for the topic, Ana. It challenges me to examine my life in depth. Now, every moment and every event appears to be a life-and-death experience.