Keyboard Shortcuts?f

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source
Recall: dual-process theory
 
Will recap the argument a bit later; for now just think about the conclusion.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-4}

Dual Process Theory of Ethical Abilities (core part)

Two (or more) ethical processes are distinct:
the conditions which influence whether they occur,
and which outputs they generate,
do not completely overlap.

 
Dual Process Theory of Ethical Abilities (core part)
 
Two (or more) ethical processes are distinct:
the conditions which influence whether they occur,
and which outputs they generate,
do not completely overlap.
 
Ok, that’s what the theory says. But what does it mean?
 
--------
\subsection{slide-7}
But let me remind you briefly of what seems to follow from the dual-process theory ...
 
--------
\subsection{slide-16}
image source: bing ai = https://www.bing.com/images/create/utilitarianism/1-65e5be78fd3d4129bfb292f46d24aaff?id=judaBO2J2PsIDo7s5%2FokPQ.eIuJQLEy4KdpH75OADAPrQ\&view=detailv2\&idpp=genimg\&idpclose=1\&thid=OIG4.X3Kiy4bz6zlM6nMFYloS\&form=SYDBIC
 
--------
\subsection{slide-20}
\emph{Drop}
Mary [...] notices an empty boxcar rolling out of control. [...] anyone it hits will die. [...] If Mary does nothing, the boxcar will hit the five people on the track. If Mary pulls a lever it will release the bottom of the footbridge and [...] one person will fall onto the track, where the boxcar will hit the one person, slow down because of the one person, and not hit the five people farther down the track.
Pulling the lever is: [extremely morally good:::neither good nor bad:::extremely morally bad]
 
--------
\subsection{slide-28}
This is what Singer and Greene, by quite different arguments, aim to show is wrong.
 
--------
\subsection{slide-30}
Not saying that the arguments are successful, but they seem cogent and worth examining further. (Perhaps in an essay.)
 
--------
\subsection{slide-33}
(I think Greene writes this somewhere) : often better to trust the fast processes, especially in familiar situations. (Reason can take you to some quite wild places.)
 
--------
\subsection{slide-34}
> ‘my point is simply that act consequentialism should get points for > not chasing intuitions and that some of its competitors [...] should lose points for doing so. > Note that the > present argument also casts doubt on theories that, rather than chasing > intuitions with codifying principles, simply allow our intuitions roam free. > Likewise, it casts doubt on theories that purport to derive from first > principles, but that are in fact intuition chasing—that is, theories that > are actually attempts to get from first principles to the intuitively > right answers rather than attempts to get from first principles to wherever > those principles happen to lead. (And, if you’re like me, you suspect that > this covers most, if not all, of act consequentialism’s competition.)’ > (Greene, 2014, p. 725)
 
--------
\subsection{slide-38}
another try
 
--------
\subsection{slide-40}
> ‘my point is simply that act consequentialism should get points for > not chasing intuitions and that some of its competitors [...] should lose points for doing so. > Note that the > present argument also casts doubt on theories that, rather than chasing > intuitions with codifying principles, simply allow our intuitions roam free. > Likewise, it casts doubt on theories that purport to derive from first > principles, but that are in fact intuition chasing—that is, theories that > are actually attempts to get from first principles to the intuitively > right answers rather than attempts to get from first principles to wherever > those principles happen to lead. (And, if you’re like me, you suspect that > this covers most, if not all, of act consequentialism’s competition.)’ > (Greene, 2014, p. 725)
 
--------
\subsection{slide-41}
What is wrong with this argument?
 
--------
\subsection{slide-43}
I do not find an argument that works. This does not mean that there is not one.
 

Dual Process Theory of Ethical Abilities (core part)

Two (or more) ethical processes are distinct:
the conditions which influence whether they occur,
and which outputs they generate,
do not completely overlap.

 

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)