Philosophy Now Forum

I have claimed in several of my threads and posts that we have a moral intuition or a moral faculty. Now I have discovered support for my claim.

The following data gives further support for the Unified Theory of Ethics argument that Ethics can be a science. First I offer for your consideration here some passages by Marc D. Hauser excerpted from his Moral Minds: The Nature of Right and Wrong (NY: Ecco - Harper Collin, 2006) pp. 52-54. Then be sure to see the relevant science report supporting the view that Individual Ethics is concerned with our moral efforts at self-mastery - which includes self-regulation and continuous self-improvement.

“Anatomy of the Moral Faculty
The classic view that dates back at least to Hume, . . . has been carried forward into the present by the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who proposes that we are equipped with four families of moral emotions:
(1) other condemning: contempt, anger, and disgust; (2) self-conscious: shame, embarrassment, and guilt;
(3) other suffering: compassion;
(4) other praising: gratitude and elevation. These moral emotions run the show. They provide us with our intuitions about what is right or wrong, and what we should or shouldn't do.it is impossible to deny that we experience guilt, compassion, and gratitude, and that these emotions materialize in our minds and bodies in the context of moral behavior, planned or imagined. These experiences, however, leave open two questions: What triggers these emotions and when do they arise in the course of moral evaluation? For an emotion to emerge, something has to trigger it. Some system in the brain must recognize a planned or completed action, and evaluate it in terms of its consequences. When an emotion emerges in a context that we describe as morally relevant, the evaluative system has identified an action that often relates to human welfare, either one's own or someone else's. The system that perceives action, breaking the apparently seamless flow of events into pieces with particular causes and consequences, must precede the emotions. . . . Our moral faculty enables each normally developing child to acquire any of the extant systems of morality. Below is a rough sketch of the Rawlsian creature's moral anatomy--in essence its design specs.”
[By Rawlsian creature, Hauser means a creature with an innate moral grammar via which recognition of causal relationships drive emotions. He contrasts this with Kant's view that human morality is driven by a rational "Categorical Imperative" and Hume's view that emotions are primary -- that "reason serves passion."] . .


“ ANATOMY OF THE RAWLSIAN CREATURE'S MORAL FACULTY

1. The moral faculty consists of a set of principles that guide our moral judgments but do not strictly determine how we act. The principles constitute the universal moral grammar, a signature of the species.
2. Each principle generates an automatic and rapid judgment concerning whether an act or event is morally permissible, obligatory, or firbidden.
3. The principles are inaccesible to conscious awareness.
4. The principles operate on experiences that are independent of their sensory origins, including imagined and perceived visual scenes, auditory events, and all forms of language--spoken, signed, and written.5. The principles of the universal moral grammar are innate.6. Acquiring the native moral s;ystem is fast and effortless, requiring little to no instruction. Experience with the native morality sets a series of parameters, giving birth to a specific moral system.
7. The moral faculty constrains the range of both possible and stable ethical systems.
8. Only the principles of our universal moral grammar are uniquely human and unique to the moral faculty.
9. To function properly, the moral faculty must interface with other capacities of the mind (e.g. language, vision, memory, attention, emotion, beliefs), some unique to humans and some shared with other species.
10. Because the moral faculty relies on specialized brain systems, damage to these systems can lead to selective deficits in moral judgments. Damage to areas involved in supporting the moral faculty (e.g., emotions, memory) can lead to deficits in moral action--of what individuals actually do, as distinct from what they think someone else should or would do.Features 1- 4 are largely descriptions of the mature state, what normal adults store in the form of unconscious and inaccessible moral knowledge. Features 5-7 are largely developmental characteristics that define the problem of acquiring a system of moral knowledge, including signatures of the species and cultural influences. Features 8-10 target evolutionary issues, including the uniqueness of our moral faculty and its evolved circuitry. Overall this anatomical description provides a framework for characterizing our moral faculty,”

.[Hauser's book, Moral Minds, examines research relevant to each of these assertions. For those interested in understanding universal ethics it offers a fascinating window into the human operating system and specifically the built-in dimensions of our ethical agreements.]
http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Minds-Natur ... 006078072X


This informative SCIENCE DAILY report provides us with important evidence:
June 6, 2012 — New pictures from the University of Iowa show what it looks like when a person runs out of patience and loses self-control.___________

A study by University of Iowa neuroscientist and neuro-marketing expert William Hedgcock confirms previous studies that show self-control is a finite commodity that is depleted by use. Once the pool has dried up, we're less likely to keep our cool the next time we're faced with a situation that requires self-control.
But Hedgcock's study is the first to actually show it happening in the brain using fMRI images that scan people as they perform self-control tasks. The images show the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) -- the part of the brain that recognizes a situation in which self-control is needed and says, "Heads up, there are multiple responses to this situation and some might not be good" -- fires with equal intensity throughout the task.
However, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) -- the part of the brain that manages self-control and says, "I really want to do the dumb thing, but I should overcome that impulse and do the smart thing" -- fires with less intensity after prior exertion of self-control.
He said that loss of activity in the DLPFC might be the person's self-control draining away. The stable activity in the ACC suggests people have no problem recognizing a temptation. Although they keep fighting, they have a harder and harder time not giving in.
Which would explain why someone who works very hard not to take seconds of lasagna at dinner winds up taking two pieces of cake at desert. The study could also modify previous thinking that considered self-control to be like a muscle. Hedgcock says his images seem to suggest that it's like a pool that can be drained by use then replenished through time in a lower conflict environment, away from temptations that require its use.
The researchers gathered their images by placing subjects in an MRI scanner and then had them perform two self-control tasks -- the first involved ignoring words that flashed on a computer screen, while the second involved choosing preferred options. The study found the subjects had a harder time exerting self-control on the second task, a phenomenon called "regulatory depletion." Hedgcock says that the subjects' DLPFCs were less active during the second self-control task, suggesting it was harder for the subjects to overcome their initial response.
Hedgcock says the study is an important step in trying to determine a clearer definition of self-control and to figure out why people do things they know aren't good for them. One possible implication is crafting better programs to help people who are trying to break addictions to things like food, shopping, drugs, or alcohol. Some therapies now help people break addictions by focusing at the conflict recognition stage and encouraging the person to avoid situations where that conflict arises. For instance, an alcoholic should stay away from places where alcohol is served.
But Hedgcock says his study suggests new therapies might be designed by focusing on the implementation stage instead. For instance, he says dieters sometimes offer to pay a friend if they fail to implement control by eating too much food, or the wrong kind of food. That penalty adds a real consequence to their failure to implement control and increases their odds of choosing a healthier alternative.
The study might also help people who suffer from a loss of self-control due to birth defect or brain injury.
"If we know why people are losing self-control, it helps us design better interventions to help them maintain control," says Hedgcock, an assistant professor in the Tippie College of Business marketing department and the UI Graduate College's Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Neuroscience.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142704.htm

Comments? Further contributions?

It would've been very cool if you would once summarize all those topics you've discussed in a linearly progressing book once. It would be one of the few things I'd find a must to read

I say linear and mean by that it should have a point and a conclusion and with each chapter moving in a straight path and providing a feeling of "progress" (unlike books that are just a summarizing of articles or individual topics and lack strict coherence; the ingredient that makes possible excitement).

Despite our differences, you are mostly far from boring, Prof.

The Voice of Time wrote:... you are mostly far from boring, Prof.

This is high praise coming from a genius.

I mean that sincerely. And I thank you for that. Some readers of the essays to which links were offered do get bored. I am glad to hear that you read LIVING THE GOOD LIFE and did not get bored. Ditto, for A Unified Theory of Ethics. Here is another one you may not have read yet; it was an early effort to explain things, was written even earlier than the COLLEGE COURSE.
Scroll down this page for some of the reviews, and for access to the publication: http://www.workforworldpeace.org/katz.htm


Thank you, VOT, for your suggestions for improvement. I am not by any means a Ben Mezrich, a Dan Brown, nor a Robert Parker ...not a novelist at all. I don't have that gift. As to the point at which I'm driving, you must have noticed that when you read the Preface to Katz - LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. [It was only 1 page long.]


Here is the text of an email I just got from Peter Demerest, the author of that course in Axiogenics to which I have given a link in an earlier post. It is in reference to that column in Science Daily which I quoted in the latter part of the o.p. of this thread. Here is what he wrote:

"Ah Ha! Another great scientific “discovery” that lends even more credibility to neuro-axiology. The premise of the article is that people have an increasingly hard time overcoming their initial responses (habits) and desires (preferences) even when they “know” it isn’t “good” for them.

Neuro-axiology (shifting from low-VQ to high-VQ), allows a person to think / perceive things quite different such that the ”temptation” is minimized or eliminated. Not because of any “should”, but because of the innate truth that high-VQs can reveal. The person literally, doesn’t want the second piece of lasagna or cake.

It still amazes me that so many of these neuroscientists haven’t figured that value perceptions drive the whole process!"

As you know, this is a forum on Ethical Theory.

My position is that each individual should concentrate on becoming a good person, having a good character; yet also be aware of the consequences of his/her actions; and in addition fulfill one's obligations and responsibilities, not using people merely as means to one's own ends but instead expressing reverence for each conscious life once the baby is born. Show others respect, and let oneself be guided by all the other ethical principles listed at the close of Aspects of Ethics: Views through a new lens -- which is the fourth part of A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS.
See http://tinyurl.com/36u6gpo which takes you to the relatively-brief paper Aspects of Ethics.

As to how to develop a good character ...take that Axiogenics course on the web, the 4-part webinar.

.

Nietzsche once wrote something along the lines of: "I will never ever again read a book by someone who writes for its own sake". The point about that statement (for which I don't know the original phrasing of) is that one should write if and only if one has something meaningful to say.

There are plenty of wannabe writers around the world churning out lousy books about this and about that all the time, my point to you is that you have something to say, something meaningful, and it's not just for the sake of writing (that is quite clear with what you've already written, that it has a point exterior to the text and where the text becomes the agent of communication rather than a product by itself).

I'm not suggesting you'll become a star or something like that, but if you took upon yourself the task of collecting the favourite points of argument across the literature you've read yourself and compile it into a book where you use your own words, sentences and argumentative style to talk about what you've seen and what you think about it (with other people's text only being references and not copied texts) you can make a book worth reading.

Not a book that will change the world, not a book that will influence a mass of people, but a book, for whom the people who reads it, it will leave a kind of mark and a nod of agreement that for those readers: it will be valuable, especially if they are unfamiliar with the literature beforehand. I imagine it being that kind of book whose title is found on a shelf in the book-store hidden between bigger and more popular books but with a more general and less gaping title that many people will find themselves buying just out of random interest and take home, read, and then perhaps pause some, and then they will see it again lying beneath the table in the living room, and remember they haven't finished it, and they will read some more.

The kind of book that people will read because it's a source of value, and they will read because it feels enriching to read it without putting pressure on themselves because of some thing they might want to achieve with it (like impressing others, impressing themselves or make themselves feel smart or caught up in the latest thing). A soothingly plain book about a professor who reads other professors But maybe my imagination is running a bit wild now... O.o

prof wrote:Some readers of the essays to which links were offered do get bored

I must just clarify that I don't read all of what you write and few of what you link, because it's much of the same with many easily digestible points that don't take a lot of study to understand. That doesn't make it boring, it just means I already know about it or have a developed concept of the idea similar or equal to that which is discussed. Harry Potter is a fantastic series of stories, but I wouldn't want to read it over again.

Not boring means valuable in general, first and foremost.

Isn't it about the right time for you, V.O.T. -- or even one of the other readers here -- to write that book you have in mind ...the one you described above.

You (or the others) many feel free to incorporate in it all my posts, without attribution. Consider them as your own. I have reached a point where I am beyond seeking glory or credit; I am retired and don't need a career. (It's always nice to have a little more income but I don't need it to survive.) My eyes have just become weaker, and I am on the verge of near-blindness. Thus reading and writing takes extra effort. I'm not sleeping well at night, in the sense that I don't get the deep sleep I need.
See especially: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9561 STEPS TO VALUE CREATION and
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9527 WHAT DO PEOPLE YEARN FOR TODAY? and
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9512 THE BEAUTIFUL SIMPLICITY

Although I have much material on ethics, many files collected, the assembling and collating, the research necessary to compile them into a book is too much of a project for me at this time.

You, however, are young - not even 21 - and do not yet have a published book to your credit. I do. So you are the logical one to write it up. The outline for it is found in the 3rd paragraph here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9278
It would proceed along the lines of:

The first priority of the normal brain is to survive. Yet we don't want merely to survive, we want a high quality life, we want to flourish. We want to optimize personal well-being. This is built into our very biology. The question then becomes: How best to do it?

The answer: Let science, the arts, and the other humanities be our guide. Science is a humanistic enterprise; as Polyani has shown it is guided by beauty. Scientists select projects to work on because they find them beautiful, and intriguingly interesting! They love the symmetries they find ... the parity, and fractal shapes, the swirls of the nebulii,the elusiveness of the boson, etc. Science won't explain everything it never claimed it could. There will thus always remain some Mystery.

If we let science be our guide, the odds are that some marvelous technologies will follow. It has been demonstrated that engineering, and designing, are arts; they are applied science. Every art is either applied science or is employing some science in the creation of the art. [Maybe story-telling and the oral transmission of folklore is an exception ...and there may be others.]

What science would best guide our Ethical life?

Why, a science of Ethics, of course !!! {It doesn't even have to be named that, as long as it fosters harmony and cooperation, lessens violence, and gross, egregious immorality.}

The universal aim of ethics is to give us a quality life, and a science of The Moral Sense, or a science of effective self-development would be the road to achieving the aim. Such an endeavor is neuro-axiology, otherwise known as Axiogenics. It has trained over ten thousand people - but is aiming for one billion - a critical mass. When enough are trained, a tipping point is reached. The liquid crystallizes; a lynchpin opens. The wold changes for the better as those coached in the new habits are now value-generating individuals. This is achievable. This is why you should pay attention. We 'lost travelers' let the science give us a sense of direction. We let it serve as a guide. Each individual then has freer choices, more autonomy, more individuality, more personal liberty. Each is self-regulating and does everything in an effective manner. Each one gets worthwhile things done. Each is caring and people-oriented.

He/she is liberated from corruption, slavery to temptation, greed, gluttony, and other deadly sins. He lives a full, rich life. He celebrates it. He is filled with gratitude and overflows with thanksgiving. His days are filled with beauty, love, and kindness.

As the people at Jean's Gift Co. have noted:

"Legends say that hummingbirds float free of time,
carrying our hopes for love, joy, and celebration.
The hummingbird's delicate grace reminds us that life is rich, beauty is everywhere, every personal connection has meaning, and that laughter is life's greatest creation."

The science of Ethics has made a discovery.

It found that the habits based upon compensating for weaknesses interfere with, often prevent, the formation of good habits - ethical habits - that are based upon one's strengths.

The research was done by extensive administration of the HVP Test (a projective/objectively-scored values/personality test) with follow-up interviews to confirm the findings. The results were shared among value scientists who then corroborated the findings.

By the phrase "ethical habits" I mean: the habits of adding value to situations, thereby tending to upgrade relationships with which one is involved. This includes creative self-improvement as well.

Know yourself. Choose (to accept, and to be) yourself. Create yourself. Give yourself.

Those are the four imperatives that the science of Individual Ethics has derived. The first one is as old as Socrates; the second was emphasized by Kierkegaard; the third means: develop your strengths and talents; and the fourth follows almost spontaneously, once the other three are accomplished. People tend to express their gifts publicly, and this is where Individual Ethics blends into Social Ethics.

I became aware of a new ethical technology enabling nonprofits to form better coalitions. Here is a link to it.:
http://www.chicagogrid.com/reviews/tech ... residence/

Their new company, Public Good Software has a formal mission to do good.

...More evidence that Ethics is catching on

A new technique has been discovered:

When there's something you 'hate' to do - such as, for example, visiting someone in the hospital - yet you feel slightly obligated to do it ....ask yourself: What would a good person do?

Such a positive inquiry presents you with a new perspective ...as asking questions (when framed positively) tends to do.

Another such question has been designated 'the central question of life' by Demerest & Schoof. It is this one:
What choice can I make, and action can I take, in this moment to achieve the greatest value {for all concerned, and all things considered}?

The question, once it becomes habitual to ask oneself mentally this, orients one in a positive ethical direction.

Thus it serves as a breakthrough technology for applying Ethics in daily life.

Comments?

Here is further evidence that Ethics can be a science, as envisioned by Dr. Katz in his booklet, A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS. See http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf as well as in his essay ETHICS AS SCIENCE here:
http://www.workforworldpeace.org/ethics_as_science.pdf

The evidence showed that people do best when positive feelings exceed negative feelings by a factor of about 3 to 1. Creativity, helpfulness to others and other elements of “flourishing” characterized people who displayed that ratio in their emotional life.


The study was made within the discipline known as Positive Psychology. However efforts to apply the mathematical formulas of the Lorenz equations for fluid dynamics did not succeed in offering a good match. This criticism was reported in a recent Science News.
Some other math will have to be proposed that is more relevant.


That is where you, the reader, comes in: can you discover a branch of Mathematics that offers a good fit to account for parts of Ethics? Talk to mathematicians you know. Get them interested in ethics. Ethics has wide-ranging concerns, as you know. Can you help make a good match between some theory and the practice? Can you sharpen up further some ethical concept - such as "flouring" - thus getting it ready to be handled scientifically? That is the challenge.