Introduction to Lecture 09
This lecture aims to bring together the different theories and discoveries we have considered over the course, returning at last to the question we started with: Why study moral psychology?
This recording is also available on stream (no ads; search enabled). Or you can view just the slides (no audio or video). You should not watch the recording this year, it’s all happening live (advice).
If the video isn’t working you could also watch it on youtube. Or you can view just the slides (no audio or video). You should not watch the recording this year, it’s all happening live (advice).
If the slides are not working, or you prefer them full screen, please try this link.
Notes
This lecture aims to bring together the different theories and discoveries we have considered over the course. It covers several issues, each of which can be considered in isolation:
What ethical abilities do preverbal infants manifest? And are there innate drivers of morality? (Appendix: Origins of Moral Psychology)
Is there any evidence against the stripped-down dual-process theory of ethics? (Conflicting Evidence against a Dual-Process Theory of Moral Judgement)
Does emotion influence moral judgment or merely motivate morally relevant action? (Reprise) (This part also introduces and objection to the Affect Heuristic.)
If the stripped-down dual-process theory of ethics is correct, what are the consequences for Moral Foundations Theory? (Moral Foundations Theory Reprise)
The stripped-down dual-process theory enables us to explain why moral reframing works (Moral Reframing and Process Dissociation).
How can do ethics without not-justified-inferentially premises? Time to Abandon Ethics?
Ask a Question
Your question will normally be answered in the question session of the next lecture.
More information about asking questions.
Glossary
A different (but related) Affect Heurstic has also be postulated to explain how people make judgements about risky things are: The more dread you feel when imagining an event, the more risky you should judge it is (see Pachur, Hertwig, & Steinmann, 2012, which is discussed in The Affect Heuristic and Risk: A Case Study).
Claims made on the basis of perception (That jumper is red, say) are typically not-justified-inferentially.
Why not just say ‘noninferentially justified’? Because that can be read as implying that the claim is justified, noninferentially. Whereas ‘not-justified-inferentially’ does not imply this. Any claim which is not justified at all is thereby not-justified-inferentially.