• In total there are 4 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 4 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Some thoughts on reason and morality

#169: Dec. - Mar. 2020 & #109: Jul. - Sept. 2012 (Non-Fiction)
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote: I'm defining scientific culture as "basing opinions on evidence". As Saint Paul said in Romans 3:23 "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” Even scientists have prejudice, and fall short of logical standards of evidence in the formation of their opinions. But to the extent people base opinions on evidence, they do not rely on intuition. There is a continuum from 100% evidence to 100% intuition.
Others have written about logical standards of evidence, but that's simply not what this book is about. Morality, politics, and religion divide people for reasons that have little to do with falling short of logical standards.
The most moral position would seem to be 100% evidence, except that we often find ourselves in situations requiring judgment, and therefore have to base decisions on intuition and the synthesis of prior evidence.
Okay, I don't see much to argue with here. Judgment is what the book is all about.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:when it comes to that large area of our social lives that involves morality or reputation, reasoning does tend to be self-serving.
This is precisely the point that I find so disturbing about this whole discussion. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations said the butcher and baker look to self interest in selling meat and bread, and are self-serving in their commercial reasoning. But really, that is not the whole of value theory. People do not simply equate self interest with the good. They also accept that rule of law is an objective good, where their personal interests may be reasonably constrained. The larger public interest of the common good are served through stability, fairness and other matters which inform legal precedent and which conflict with selfish reasoning.

Self-serving reasoning asks 'what can I get away with?' Objective reasoning asks 'what is the public good?' The latter is Kant's categorical imperative of duty. Haidt seems very nihilistic, like Hume, lacking any comprehension of duty.

Haidt's discussion of Plato and Glaucon seems to neglect this distinction between public and private good. But I will have to look further at Plato's Republic again before commenting further on this one.
I should have modified the word 'reasoning' with 'moral. I think it is essential to keep the discussion from spiraling out to a larger frame of meaning than Haidt intends in this part of the book. If you'll look at his procedure, he attempts to back up his conclusions with experimental evidence, which is necessarily going to answer specific questions, not the larger philosophical ones you bring up. He says that when people engage in moral reasoning, that is, when they tell us why they have judged as they have, they tend to want to make themselves look good because people are watching. I hope others will tell me if they disagree, but Haidt doesn't rule on ideals such as the ones you mention above. People may well have these ideals; Haidt is neither saying they don't or that such ideals aren't good to have. I think you aren't taking into account the approaches scientists need to use if they are going to look into these matters of psychology. They need to steer well clear of advocating for certain goods, as you seem to want Haidt to do.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

DWill wrote:Morality, politics, and religion divide people for reasons that have little to do with falling short of logical standards.
Do you really think that? I suspect these divisions have a lot to do with an absence of good logic.

As a thought experiment, could it be true that if people had perfect logical standards, they would agree on everything? The argument here would be that division arises when illogical beliefs intrude into debate, and it is just because life is so very far from logic that we cannot imagine what it would be like to have a rational culture.

Public debate generally tries to use logic, convincing people by power of reason. As noted earlier, no one can admit to believing things despite knowing they are untrue. Logic can generally prove when a claim is false. But the problem is that most debaters refuse to put their premises up for examination, so they ignore elephants in the room. People rationalise their beliefs rather than subjecting their beliefs to logical scrutiny.

But then I suppose people will differ about their ends, their visions of the good life. For example with abortion, people differ on the extent to which the right to life or the right to choose are legitimate moral ends. All the evidence and logic in the world is not going to change these value frameworks.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

scotchbooks wrote:Whenever we are certain of our position we are most at risk of error.
Hello scotchbooks, welcome to booktalk.

Your comment here is surprising. In fact it is untrue. More commonly, whenever we are uncertain of our position we are at most at risk of error. This is the exact opposite of your proverb.

Sorry if my comment here looks pedantic, or ignores the spirit in which you made your comment. But it is an interesting example of a statement whose real intent is very unclear, as to whether it is a joke or serious, but which can readily become the foundation of other claims that are not so innocent.

It sometimes happens with fanatics that people are certain despite being wrong. But that is no basis to generalise about a link between certainty and error. Generally they are opposite.

The aphorism you made has the quality of a paradoxical homily, a light-hearted homespun Franklinism designed to inculcate humility and modesty. But consider the implications. Cliches like this have a perverse effect, leading people to doubt things that are actually true, especially claims that are fully based on scientific evidence.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

Robert Tulip wrote:
DWill wrote:Morality, politics, and religion divide people for reasons that have little to do with falling short of logical standards.
Do you really think that? I suspect these divisions have a lot to do with an absence of good logic.

As a thought experiment, could it be true that if people had perfect logical standards, they would agree on everything? The argument here would be that division arises when illogical beliefs intrude into debate, and it is just because life is so very far from logic that we cannot imagine what it would be like to have a rational culture.
I can see why you would be surprised at my statement, but what I mean is that the attachments that people can't avoid having are in general what create this sometimes troublesome, other times welcome, but always interesting mix of human voices. If you're saying there is some ideal condition under which we would all have the same attachments, and that condition would be brought about by everyone having perfect logic, I disagree. It's very possible for the logic of different views to be okay, in fact, yet for the division to remain.
Public debate generally tries to use logic, convincing people by power of reason. As noted earlier, no one can admit to believing things despite knowing they are untrue. Logic can generally prove when a claim is false. But the problem is that most debaters refuse to put their premises up for examination, so they ignore elephants in the room. People rationalise their beliefs rather than subjecting their beliefs to logical scrutiny.
Now it's my turn for surprise. Your public debate in Australia must be of a totally different kind than ours in the U.S. As you've said yourself, when we are forced to make judgments, which actually we do both automatically and deliberately, we need to rely to a degree on intuition. Then, if we give ourselves time and have the right habit of reflection, we might modify the inititial affective flashes we get from intuition. However in Chapter 4 of the book, Haidt tells us that only under certain conditions does the pause to consider really help us divert our thinking from its wonted path.
But then I suppose people will differ about their ends, their visions of the good life. For example with abortion, people differ on the extent to which the right to life or the right to choose are legitimate moral ends. All the evidence and logic in the world is not going to change these value frameworks..
Ah, yes. And what is implied is that logic is not one side or the other.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

It sometimes happens with fanatics that people are certain despite being wrong. But that is no basis to generalise about a link between certainty and error. Generally they are opposite.
I agree with scotchbooks here Robert. When you are certain of something, you are less likely to change your mind when you come across disconfirming data, all other things being equal.

If you have a formula by which certain beliefs are measures critically, you are still better off with a touch of uncertainty, to 'keep the door open'. The door doesn't need to lead to false beliefs. Instead, it can be a necker-cube style perception shift that wouldn't have happened otherwise. If you are certain of the truth of something, you can still benefit by gaining a better conceptual understanding, which would be limited if you are locked in a cell of certainty. Sometimes parts of a belief seem to go retrograde during a perspective shift, but the concept as a whole benefits.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
scotchbooks
Getting Comfortable
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2010 1:19 pm
13
Location: San Tan Valley, AZ
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

Actually Robert, there seems to be considerable evidence that feelings of certainty "stem from primitive areas of the brain and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning." For the evidence and arguments in favor of this I refer you to the work of Robert A. Burton, a UCSF neuroscientist, as detailed in his book "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" from which the above quote was selected.

Once we become certain of the truth of a political or religious belief it becomes almost invulnerable to rational or logical refutation. This will become Haidt's position as well when he discusses what can be done to mediate the bitter disputes splitting our people and political parties today.

Incidentally, even scientific theories such as those of Darwin are never finished products or facts to which certainty can be attached. They are, at best, highly probable explanations with at least a wink of doubt. Consider the 5 sigma standard for discovery of the Higg's boson. Still some doubt.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

Robert's certainty about certainty makes it harder for me to dismiss his certainty! Maybe that in itself points to an original evolutionary advantage to our feeling of certainty (and thanks, by the way, to scotchbooks for bringing up Robert Burton's book, which we read here several years ago). It's easy to imagine that getting that feeling of absolute conviction would be a spur to decisive action that could aid in survival. In other spheres of life, such as social leadership, there could be an advantage to anyone who who displayed such a quality, because in times of peril or need we look to people who tell us they are absolutely sure of what to do. We may feel our own evidence is too limited for us to know ourselves, but we know something should be done, and the guy who shows this certainty, well he must have it for a good reason, or so we may believe. Perhaps this cocksure leader screws up, perhaps he doesn't, but we seem not to be able to help give credence to his feeling of certainty, unless we have strong evidence of our own, or an opposing leader who is certain in his own right.

I too can believe that certainty is not primarily a forebrain, rational product. I think when we talk of wanting to see a "core of conviction" in a leader, we're talking about the elephant. We want to see that this person has that solid, instinctual quality of always knowing who he is and what is the right thing to do. We want that to remain even in the face of rational arguments that might sway a less anchored personality. Or at least I would want to argue that we are conflicted about certainty, valuing it in people yet also valuing the ability to change course when disconfirming evidence presents itself.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

scotchbooks wrote:Actually Robert, there seems to be considerable evidence that feelings of certainty "stem from primitive areas of the brain and are independent of active, conscious reflection and reasoning." For the evidence and arguments in favor of this I refer you to the work of Robert A. Burton, a UCSF neuroscientist, as detailed in his book "On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not" from which the above quote was selected.
As with Haidt, I followed the discussion on Burton here with interest, although sadly not finding time to read the book, but chipping in on the summary comments from my perspective.

It is worth going back to the recent discussion here about Plato to explain my view on certainty. Plato held that we can only be certain of knowledge that arises from intelligence, and that beliefs which arise from appearances are never certain. This means that political and religious convictions which lack an intelligible rational frame should not be classed as certainty, despite the fervour with which they are held.

Intelligence tells us that only core scientific facts can be indubitably certain. Astronomy is the paradigm, with our knowledge of facts about the universe sitting together so coherently that doubting them arises only from stupidity or ignorance. But at the frontier, science acknowledges its uncertainty: the fact that we cannot explain dark matter does not mean we should entertain doubt about whether the inverse square law of gravity predicts planetary positions.

For any other claims, they need to match the gold standard of astronomical knowledge to be classed as certain. Religion and politics just don't cut it, due to the obvious existence of large scale delusion and error in these fields.
Once we become certain of the truth of a political or religious belief it becomes almost invulnerable to rational or logical refutation. This will become Haidt's position as well when he discusses what can be done to mediate the bitter disputes splitting our people and political parties today.
What I don't like here is the apparent elision from the observation that social certainty is illusory to the claim that scientific certainty is similarly unreliable. This line of thinking leads to a mad sort of solipsism where we are not even sure the universe exists.
Incidentally, even scientific theories such as those of Darwin are never finished products or facts to which certainty can be attached. They are, at best, highly probable explanations with at least a wink of doubt. Consider the 5 sigma standard for discovery of the Higg's boson. Still some doubt.
The fact that science is incomplete does not imply that it contains no certain knowledge. Uncertainty about the Higgs boson should not imply uncertainty about the existence of atoms. Atoms absolutely exist as a necessary condition of experience. It is a fallacy to say that not knowing everything means we know nothing.
User avatar
denisecummins
Atop the Piled Books
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 3:22 pm
11
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Some thoughts on reason and morality

Unread post

A short but excellent article written by Haidt that lays out clearly and succinctly his position can be found here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?h ... i=scholarr

Incidentally, I must object to the claim that Hume had no sense of moral duty. Hume introduced the notion of utility into moral theory; we approve of moral acts in part because they have utility – they are useful. But, in a section titled Why Utility Pleases (Section V of Hume, 1751), he argues that we approve of such useful actions because of our ability to sympathize with the recipients of those actions. He also believed that the highest merit a human can achieve was benevolence.
Denise Cummins, PhD
Author and Experimental Psychologist
http://www.goodthinkingbooks.com
http://www.denisecummins.com
Locked

Return to “The Righteous Mind - by Jonathan Haidt”