Blog #8

     Haidt, Jonathan. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108 (4), 814.

Haidt presents a great deal of information in his article The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail—all having to do with the social intuitionist model and how it relates to moral judgement. The author gives us four explanations on why we should question or doubt the relevance of reason: “The Dual Process Problem, The Motivated Reasoning Problem, The Post Hoc Problem, and The Action Problem. While all explanations make valid points, I felt that I related most to the motivated reasoning problem. After re-reading, I realize I may align with this one the most because I’ve grown up in a family of attorneys. Haidt also provides good examples of relatedness motives and coherence motives. 

I was most interested in Haidt’s ideas that he presented on how to test the social intuitionist model. Because of the complication of this model, he offers three ways to do so. The first had to do with the interference of reasoning. As we learned, reasoning is a process that takes time and a great deal of thought; however, intuition is something that comes to us quickly. Perhaps it is something we are born with, therefore making it a quick witted response with little thought. The author suggests that more research must be done to determine what these interferences could be and how they affect the moral situation and judgement. This is an interesting dilemma to consider and one that should require further research by field experts.

The other two questions have to do with Ecological Variation and Consilience. According to Haidt on consilience, “the degree to which facts and theories link up across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation” (2001, pg. 829). No matter what your opinion on this article, the one thing that holds true is the notion that this day in age, there are a plethora of new ways to think about moral judgement and the forces that drive moral reasoning. 

Blog #7

   Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Messick, D. M. (2004). Ethical fading. The role of self-deception in unethical behavior. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 223-236.

The notion of self-deception is interesting and something I had never explored prior to reading this article. When I think of self-deception, I define it as lying to oneself until you begin to believe it is true. The topics can vary vastly, but this notion of denial usually leads to poor outcomes. As I examined this article, I found that my own definition was pretty in-line with the experts, but also gained a greater understanding of the background of the term includes the many layers that contribute to the term. I had also not considered the ethical implications that come in to play until reading this article.

What really stood out for me in this article was the section on “The Art of Self-Deception.” I found it fascinating that the question remains unknown as to whether self-deception is “the result of a conscious act or an unconscious process,” (Tenbrunsel, 2004, p. 225). When I read this, I immediately ask myself, how can this be unethical if the person is not even aware of what they are doing? We do learn that there must be an underlying issue that causes a person to lie to themselves, therefore, resulting in an unethical practice. Also, the authors explain how self-deception contributes to unethical decisions. As the article continues, we learn more about the enablers that contribute to poor ethical outcomes. In my mind, I viewed these enablers as triggers. It is essential that a person learn to recognize the problem in order to really deal with and address the situation. 

Blog #6

Epley, N. & Caruso, E. M. (2004). Egocentric ethics. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 171-187.

I really enjoyed the section in Epley and Carusos article on egocentric biases. This topic has a lot to do with judgment and one’s self-perception—especially when a person is close minded and believes that their perception is true and sacred. 

I think I’m fascinated by this topic because these types of people can easily drive me crazy. I appreciate it when people are open-minded. That is not to say that I don’t think individuals are entitled to their opinions. I think that being close-minded can be detrimental to a person—whether professionally or personally.

In the article, we learn that there are several factors that increase and accelerate egocentric biases. According to Epley and Caruso:

1.       First, egocentric biases increase when the ability to expend attentional resources is compromised.

2.       Second, egocentric biases are reduced when participants are given financial incentives for accuracy

3.       Third, egocentric biases increase when people are asked to respond quickly

4.       Fourth, egocentric biases are enhanced by manipulations that increase the likelihood of accepting values encountered early in the process of adjustment away from an egocentric default.

After reviewing their list of factors that increase egocentric biases, the two that stand out to me are financial incentives and when people are asked to respond quickly. I feel like I’ve seen both of these scenarios play out in life. Financial incentives can often have a negative result, especially when a person can possibly be in for some type of personal gain. When people are asked to respond quickly, they are not providing their undivided attention and the proper amount of time to really think through the situation. 

Blog #5

Dasgupta -- Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and there behavioral manifestations. 

It was interesting to see the three themes that emerged in this article. The common thread of stereotypes was something that really stood out to me. I was especially interested in the gender stereotypes and the ageist stereotypes.

Women that were consumed with males that adhered to traditional chivalrous roles were found to not care about their own personal clout and also did not have lofty goals for themselves. I was disappointed to read this and the reasoning explained that this attitude was a direct influence of the society that surrounded these disadvantaged women. The gender stereotypes negatively affected them quite possibly, without the women even being aware.

This topic got me thinking about the current debate that has to do with women and equal pay. It infuriates me to know that a woman could make 30% less than a man for doing the exact same job with the same level of experience. But, due to social pressures and a fear to speak up, women continue to endure the unfair injustice. 

Blog #4

Ethics the Fundamentals – Julia Driver #2

Chapter 2 and Egoism

In this chapter, Driver examines psychological egoism and whether there could possibly be any value in such a self-centered trait. When describing psychological egoism, it is important to understand that the only thing on the mind of the person is their own well-being and self-interest. According to Driver, psychological egoism “concerns how people actually behave, not how they ought to behave,” (pg. 39). This is an interesting concept and really makes me think of and compare the concept to young children. Once children reach a certain age, for the most part, they know right from wrong and how to be good or if they are misbehaving. When Driver describes this type of egoism, it is in relation to adult behavior.

Driver also describes the extreme contrast between psychological egoism and altruist actions which only take in to consideration the welfare of others. Those that weigh heavily on the side of psychological egoism cannot comprehend that a person would do something with only the interest of others in mind. An example used would be someone giving a donation to a charity. This was so interesting to me because I work at Drake University and my job is to fund-raise for support dollars from alumni and friends of the University. The argument states that a person only gives money to an organization because it will ultimately benefit them personally in the long run. I guess that according to those guidelines, I would have to assume the last donation I received for a capital project was only because the person is hopeful that the building will create some sort of business opportunity or personal gain for them.

Because of the field I am in, I strongly disagree with this position. Most of the people that give do so because they have an established relationship with the University and want to support an organization that they strongly believe in. They also want to continue to help it grow and thrive for future generations to come—a very altruistic point of view. 

Blog #3

Kant and the Spelling Bee Hero

I enjoyed reading the excerpt within the chapter about Kant that talked about the young student who was participating in a spelling bee in Washington D.C. years ago. The boy misspelled a word, but the judge thought he heard him spell it correctly. After the boy learned of this mistake the next day, he alerted judges on his own to tell them that he had unknowingly misspelled the word and they did not catch the error. The boy was eliminated from the spelling bee for turning himself in and when immediately dubbed the ‘spelling bee hero’ for his honesty and for doing the correct moral thing. In an interview, the boy admittedly said he did not want to “feel like slime” by not telling the judges that he spelled the word incorrectly.

The questions that come to mind are: did this boy turn himself in because it was his duty and the morally correct thing to do (as Kant’s theory states); or, did he turn himself in because he was worried how others would judge him (from his slime statement). In my opinion, I feel it is OK if he had both inclinations because, at the end of the day, he still did the correct thing. As the semester has progressed, we learn that this can be called Kant’s altruist. As Michael Sandal states:

“If he comes to the aid of other people simply for the pleasure it gives him, then his action lacks moral worth. But if he recognizes a duty to help one’s fellow human beings and acts out of that duty, then the plea sure he derives from it is not morally disqualifying.”

I appreciate Kant’s viewpoint and think a person can be morally honest but also proud of their decision to do so, as was the case of the spelling bee hero. He also did not want people to think poorly of him (had he not turned himself in) which contributed to his motive and supports Kant’s altruist point of view. 

Blog #2

Pregnancy for Pay -- Michael Sandel

This was such an interesting topic to me and one that really hit home personally having known many women (myself included) who have struggled with infertility. William and Elizabeth Stern wanted a baby, but, due to her multiple sclerosis, she was unable to have one on her own. Therefore, a contract was willingly drafted and it was decided that the Stern’s would pay a surrogate, Mary Beth Whitehaed, upon delivery of the child. After Mary Beth became pregnant and had the baby, she fled New Jersey to Florida and decided she wanted to keep the baby. Biologically, the baby was William Stern and Mary Beth Whitehead. However, the agreement stated that Mary Beth would have no rights.

After many court cases, including a reversal by the New Jersey Supreme Court, ultimately the Stern family received custody of baby Melissa. The case of Baby M, as it was referred to in court, became an extremely controversial subject and called into question many moral ethical dilemmas. Since this time, many states have surrogacy laws in place. This was a major problem for the Stern’s because New Jersey had no existing laws. What also came to question was the practice of buying a baby, or buy the reproductive rights to another woman to have a baby for another couple.

I can see both sides, ultimately, I side with the Stern’s and am happy that Melissa was given custody to her family. It is sad that Mary Beth changed her mind, but initially, she agreed to the terms and signed a contract with two other adults. What do others think about this?