Preview: Ethics vs Physics

Summary

The speaker explores the limitations of ethical reasoning when relying solely on intuitive, reflective methods, using comparisons to physical science. They emphasize that fast, instinctive cognition, which evolved for familiar situations, may fail when addressing novel ethical dilemmas, much like how Aristotelian physics struggled with complex phenomena. The discussion critiques methods like reflective equilibrium and suggests that scientific discoveries in moral psychology could reshape our approach to ethics, offering a more systematic and evidence-based framework for solving ethical issues.

Takeaways

• 😀 Ethical reasoning is often influenced by intuitive, fast processes, prioritizing utility over consistency, which can be problematic in unfamiliar situations.
• 😀 Reflective equilibrium and informal observation may be insufficient for addressing novel ethical issues like artificial intelligence or genetic engineering.
• 😀 Traditional methods of moral judgment may not be equipped to handle unfamiliar ethical problems because they are based on situations humans have historically encountered.
• 😀 Just as in physics, scientific discoveries can challenge or refine our understanding of the world, but ethical principles cannot be directly undermined or supported by scientific findings.
• 😀 Ethical theories based on informal reflection, such as Philippa Foot's trolley cases, face limitations and cannot provide consistent, systematic solutions to ethical problems.
• 😀 The speed of intuitive processes in ethics may lead to decisions that are pragmatic but lack the consistency required for long-term ethical theory development.
• 😀 The comparison between the development of physics and ethics shows that while scientific methods in physics provide reliable predictions, ethics lacks an equivalent system of testing and refinement.
• 😀 Ethical problems, such as cloning or AI, present new challenges where moral intuitions are often outdated or irrelevant, as they involve unfamiliar factors not encountered in evolutionary history.
• 😀 Discoveries in moral psychology could inform a more scientific approach to ethics, potentially helping to understand how humans process moral decisions and their limitations.
• 😀 The debate between methods of ethical inquiry (such as Thompson’s and Foot’s methods) highlights the tension between intuition-based approaches and more systematic, scientific ones in moral philosophy.

Q & A

What is the core argument of the speaker regarding the relationship between scientific discoveries and ethics?

The speaker argues that scientific discoveries, particularly in physical cognition, cannot directly undermine or support ethical principles. They suggest that just as discoveries in physics don't affect physical theories, discoveries in moral psychology should not directly affect ethics.

How does the speaker compare ethical reasoning to physical reasoning?

The speaker compares ethical reasoning to physical reasoning by stating that both rely on fast, intuitive processes that prioritize utility over consistency. However, in ethics, this approach can lead to inconsistencies because it does not account for unfamiliar problems or more systematic reasoning methods.

What does the speaker mean by 'unfamiliar problems' in ethics?

Unfamiliar problems in ethics are situations that involve ethically relevant considerations that humans have not had to address during their evolutionary history, such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, or advanced biotechnology. These problems require new ethical thinking beyond intuitive reflection.

Why does the speaker reject the method of reflective equilibrium in ethics?

The speaker rejects reflective equilibrium in ethics because they believe it relies too much on informal, intuitive reasoning, which is insufficient for addressing complex and unfamiliar ethical problems. This method fails to systematically address the evolving nature of ethical issues.

How does the speaker view the role of philosophers like Philippa Foot in the development of ethics?

The speaker acknowledges that Philippa Foot's method of using thought experiments (like trolley cases) to explore ethical principles can be valuable, but they argue that this method is flawed because it lacks systematic rigor and relies on informal observation and reflection.

What is the speaker's view on using cognitive science to inform ethical theory?

The speaker suggests that while cognitive science, especially moral psychology, can inform our understanding of human cognition, it does not directly shape ethical principles. They argue that moral psychology reveals limitations in our ethical reasoning but does not offer a clear method for deriving ethical truths.

Why does the speaker compare ethics to the early development of physics?

The speaker compares ethics to the early development of physics to highlight how both fields initially relied on informal methods. Just as Aristotelian physics eventually gave way to more rigorous, systematic approaches, they suggest ethics needs to evolve in a similar way by moving beyond intuitive, reflective methods.

What is the significance of the analogy between physical and moral cognition?

The analogy between physical and moral cognition is used to highlight how both fields involve fast, intuitive processes that are well-suited for familiar situations but may fail in unfamiliar contexts. This analogy suggests that ethical reasoning, like physical cognition, should develop more systematic methods to address complex issues.

How does the speaker distinguish between the 'fast' and 'slow' processes in moral reasoning?

The speaker distinguishes between 'fast' processes, which prioritize utility and are based on intuition and reflection, and 'slow' processes, which prioritize consistency and require more careful, systematic thinking. In ethics, fast processes can lead to inconsistent or inadequate ethical judgments.

What is the speaker's stance on the idea that scientific discoveries could change how humans do ethics?

The speaker believes that scientific discoveries, especially in moral cognition, could influence how we approach ethics by highlighting the limitations of intuitive reasoning. However, they caution that such discoveries should lead to more systematic ethical methods, rather than merely supporting intuitive moral judgments.