Moral Psychology By Joshua Fletcher

An understanding of Moral Psychology:

The idea of Moral Psychology revolves around attempting to understand why humans have certain morals, how these morals are developed, and what the basis of Morality is. Figuring out why people think the way they do is no easy task, as this jumps into the whole "thinking about thinking" method which can be excruciatingly confusing. This article tries to attain answers to the above questions through a number of subjects to include thought experiments, responsibility, character, egoism versus altruism, and moral disagreement.

These thought experiments are rather unproven and situational experiments that usually consist of a hypothetical question is given to an audience in such a way to try and produce a certain philosophical response. In other words, a person (usually a lecturer) gives some sort of question of moral value and studies what response comes from the people. The article also tries to discuss problems with the methods used by these thought experimenters. When one of the examples are given in the article, two statements that are, essentially, the same, are given in different formats. Once both of these statements are made, completely different reactions from the audiences come up. This indicates some flaws in the system in the fact that some people react entirely to the wording of the statements given, and not so much the actual morality behind it. In other words, style of text matters incredibly.

Pertaining to Moral responsibility, the article discusses two sides of the story. On one side are the incompatibalits who are adamant on the opinion that determinism is completely irrelevant towards moral responsibility; they claim that responsibility requires that people enjoy the alternatives for their behavior or the ultimate source of their behavior. The other side of the spectrum are the Compatibilists who argue that determinism is compatible with moral responsibility by denying that responsible agency requires that the actor have genuinely easy access alternative.

This article has a strong emphasis on what we call virtue ethics. It speaks of virtue ethics and skepticism about character. Virtue ethics focuses on the idea of the moral agent, rather than consequences of being immoral. Virtue ethics is a quest to find what is the source of morality. why do people think some things are wrong and other things right. Virtue ethics, primarily, claims that there are certain things that are wrong simply because they are wrong. Not because bad things come from these wrong things. For instance, a person who believes in virtue ethics would claim that when someone murders an entire family, it is wrong simply because, in essence, it is bad. However, the opposition would be that it is wrong because murdering a family would cause great pain and sorrow in the world, and therefore it is wrong because of its consequences. Overall, this article makes an attempt to try and determine why people believe and think in the way that they do when it comes to morality.

How this article and topic relates to our class:

Of all the topics that have been brought up in Contemporary Moral Problems, this article and issue relates most importantly to authoritarianism and utilitarianism. And while, yes, this article can relate to a number of different things; such a short essay does not permit the luxury of discussing all things. Because this article revolves around the idea that maybe some ethics are completely not debatable, or that all ethics revolve around consequences are essential to the thought process of Authoritarianism. This article relates to two manners that must be considered. Some may say, rather, two options. The options are that either there are objective moral values that are just in essence perfect and undebatable, or that moral values are contemplated from a manner of what causes most pain. If objective moral values exist then a God must exist, and therefore authoritarianism must be real. And if this is not true then the ladder is correct. So it is either Utilitarianism or Authoritarianism. These two points are the most relative in class work we have towards the idea of moral psychology.

Three questions that may arise after reading this article:

1.) Do objective moral values exist?

2.) If objective moral values do not exist, then what determines what is wrong and what is right in the world?

3.) Is there science behind moral values (from the brain), if, in fact, authoritarianism and Utilitarianism are invalid?

Answer to a question brought up from another persons topic:

From "Feminist Ethics by Ronnie"

Do male political figures really take feminist serious and they bring up their opinions?
This question is difficult to answer without giving a rather stereotypical thesis statement to answer. However, the fact of the manner is, feminism is the idea that women should have equal rights as men because they are just as valuable and are not inferior overall in relation to men. It is safe to say that males, especially male politicians for that matter, do not believe that women are on equal status as men. Most believe women are equal to men, many believe that men are superior to women, but here is the big point: There are probably no men that believe women are better than men. This is interesting in the fact that it proves to be a big boundary for feminists. Male politicians don't often care so much for feminist opinions because many of them believe women are inferior to them and that their problems are not their own priorities.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License