Be mindful of your feelings Speciesism as a moral illusion Stijn Bruers, IARC, Esch, sept-2012.
-
Upload
kristian-allison -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Be mindful of your feelings Speciesism as a moral illusion Stijn Bruers, IARC, Esch, sept-2012.
Be mindful of your feelings
Speciesism as a moral illusion
Stijn Bruers, IARC, Esch, sept-2012
Overview
• What are moral illusions? Analogy with optical illusions
• How to detect moral illusion? • Do moral illusions exist? Yes: the trolley
problem• Can speciesism be a moral illusion?
Moral illusions
• Moral illusions are obstinate but incorrect intuitive judgments, comparable to the famous optical illusions.
• Method to detect them: – Coherentism (reflective equilibrium): mutual support
of intuitions and principles • Universalism: translating strong moral intuitions into
universalized ethical principles• Consistency
– Knowledge about moral psychological mechanisms
Coherentism
More than merely consistencyCrossword puzzle (white boxes = situations)
Universalism: words (=universal principles) instead of separate letters (=situational intuitions/rules)
Consistency: 1 letter per box
Optical illusions
1. Translation-invariance: measure sticks never change length when shifted in any direction
Optical illusions
1. Translation-invariance
2. Context-independence: influence of environment is arbitrary, artificial, fuzzy: never important
Optical illusions
1. Translation-invariance
2. Context-independence
3. Optical mechanism– 3D->2D perspective
adaptation (heuristics, D.Kahneman)
– Lateral inhibition (contrasts)
Coherent
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
A
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
Action allowed: 90% of people
B
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
Action allowed: 50% of people
C
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
Action allowed: 10% of people
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
• A versus B and C: victim is not used as merely means
• A and B versus C: victim is not send to threat
What distinguishes B from C? The locus of intervention (at victim or at threat): “throwing bomb on a person or throwing person on a bomb?”
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
Translation invariance• All individuals have– Right not to be killed– Right not to be used as merely means
• Moral status of individual is independent from locus of intervention
B C
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
Context independence: erase irrelevant details
Moral illusions: the trolley problem
Psychological mechanism• Intervention myopia: “people who are
evaluating the morality of options may give victims in the background less weight than victims in the attentional spotlight.” (Waldmann & Dieterich, 2007)
• Moral heuristic: attribute substitution (Kahneman, 1982; Sunstein, 2005)
Can speciesism be a moral illusion?
• 5 arguments against speciesism (context independence)
• 5 arguments pro sentience (translation invariance)
• Essentialism and heuristics (psychological mechanism)
Against speciesism1. Who am I? I am: – white (population), – a Homo sapiens sapiens (subspecies), – a Homo sapiens (species), – a Homo (genus), – a great ape (family), – a Hominoid (super family), – a simian (infraorder), – a dry nosed primate (suborder), – a primate (order), – a placental (infra class), – a mammal (class), – a vertebrate (phylum), – an animal (kingdom)
Too arbitrary
Against speciesism
2. What is a human? What about – humanzee hybrids? – human-animal chimera? – ancestors (Homo habilis,
Australopithecus,…)? – genetically modified
humans,…?
Against speciesism
3. How is a species defined? Interbreeding and fertile offspring? – All species are connected
into one “temporal ring species”.
– Is the accidental death of intermediates relevant?
Cfr. context independence: speciesism is arbitrary, artificial, intrinsically fuzzy
Against speciesism
4. Genes and bodily properties are not relevant in situation A (e.g. racism), so should not be relevant in situation B (speciesism).
5. Speciesism is a violation of the merit principle
Sentience
1. Well-being and impartiality. Cfr. consequentialist (Singer) and contractualist (Rowlands) ethics: veil of ignorance
2. Empathy is a virtue to be developed (virtue ethics and ethics of care)
Cfr translation invariance, using empathy or the veil of ignorance to put yourself into the position of the other
Sentience
3. Rights ethics: the connection between feelings, interests and rights is not farfetched– Feelings detect interests (e.g.: pain -> bodily
integrity)– Rights protect interests
4. Consciousness is special (complex, vulnerable,…) and should be protected
5. Sentience is the only mental capacity that mentally disabled humans share with us
Essentialism
• The psychological explanation• Children and adults (from different cultures and
backgrounds) intuitively describe biological entities in essentialist terms. They think that biological categories have invisible essences (Gelman, 2003; Bloom, 2010)
• Studies about racism also demonstrates that racists think of races or ethnic groups as being essentialized natural groups (Gil-White, 2001)
• But essentialism is in contradiction with Darwinism and current biology
Speciesism as a moral illusionMoral status of animal
Moral status of human
(Morally) irrelevant properties
The ten arguments are coherent with each otherThere is no “essence” related to lines with inward pointing arrowheads
Speciesism as a moral heuristic
• Daniel Kahneman, Cass Sunstein• Attribute substitution• Target attribute: rationality, self-consciousness,…• Heuristic attribute: human• Based on – Pattern recognition skills: a human is easier to detect than a
rational being– Most humans have the target attribute
• Heuristic ‘misfires’ at mentally disabled humans• Should people keep this heuristic?