Notes: Critical Thinking, Cognitive Biases, and Challenges to Morality (Lecture on Module 1–2 Transitions)

Quiz logistics and course structure

• Reading quiz 1 details
  • Date and time: Monday, September 29 at 09:05 AM
  • Format: 15 minutes, 10 multiple-choice questions
  • Source: readings drawn from the textbook, not from additional reading folders
  • Readings to study: two textbook essays
  • Subjectivism by Julia Driver
  • Egoism and Moral Skepticism by James Raschals
  • Purpose: exercise in critical reading to understand the author’s argument and how it is made
• Where to find readings for the quiz
  • Readings are in the textbook (not in the “additional reading” folders)
  • No fixed page numbers across volumes or editions; page numbers differ between volumes (and between hardbound and digital copies)
  • How to locate essays: open the textbook, go to Table of Contents, find the essay title and author (e.g., Subjectivism by Julia Driver, Egoism and Moral Skepticism by James Raschals)
• Course logistics and communication
  • If questions arise, email the instructor for guidance
  • Announcements and in-class Q&A occur at start of class; after questions, proceed to Blackboard module folders
• Module 1 wrap-up and transition to Module 2
  • End of Lecture 4 of Module 1: Fallacies and biases
  • Emphasis: cognitive biases are central, not merely optional topics
  • Prior worksheet focus: fallacies; biases were not required on the argument analysis worksheet
  • Preview of Module 2: challenges to morality, with Stephen Khan’s editor’s framing in Ethics: Introduction to an Ethic Anthology

Critical thinking review: biases, emotion, and reasoning

• Central claim: people often accept beliefs as true without evidence and reject evidence that contradicts their beliefs
• Cultural context: modern culture tends to prioritize feelings over other considerations when judging right/wrong or true/false
• Emotions vs. reason
  • Feelings are not inherently bad; both reason and emotions are important in human life
  • Tension: quick, emotionally driven judgments can be efficient but risk error when critical thinking is needed
• Evolutionary perspective (brief)
  • Emotions can be adaptive for quick decisions (e.g., sensing danger) but may not yield the best long-term rational conclusions
• Definition of cognitive biases (summary)
  • Cognitive biases are systematic impediments to critical reasoning caused by filtering information through personal experience and preferences
  • This filtering is a coping mechanism to process large information loads quickly, but it can lead to errors and poor decisions
• Consequences for critical reading and argumentation
  • Biases can shape how we evaluate arguments, evidence, and other people
  • Openness to alternatives is essential for fair evaluation, not naive acceptance of every view
  • Open-mindedness involves willingness to consider being wrong and to defend one's position with reasoned evidence

Key cognitive biases discussed

• Dunning-Kruger effect

  • Core idea: ignorance of how ignorant we are; overestimate our own knowledge or ability due to lack of self-awareness
  • Plain-language takeaway: the more you know, the more you realize how much you don’t know; less knowledge can produce overconfidence
  • Implication: recognize areas where you might overestimate competence; practice intellectual humility
  • Related concept: confidence may exceed actual competence
  • Practical note: acknowledge the limits of one’s knowledge and delay final judgments until more evidence is gathered

• Confirmation bias (within the Dunning-Kruger context too)

  • Tendency to attend to evidence that confirms what we already believe and discount or ignore evidence that contradicts it
  • Example framework: political leadership (election outcomes, media reporting) where supporters/down supporters selectively accept negative/positive reports depending on their stance
  • Consequence: reinforces existing beliefs and makes fair evaluation harder

• Availability heuristic (availability error)

  • Tendency to rely on evidence that is memorable or vivid rather than statistically reliable or broadly representative
  • Everyday effect: memorable personal experiences shape beliefs more than systematic evidence
  • Example vignette: vivid anecdote about a harmful dog breed can lead to biased beliefs about all dogs of that breed
  • Caution: memorable events do not guarantee generalizable or accurate conclusions

• Motivated reasoning

  • Definition: reasoning performed to support a preconceived conclusion rather than to discover the truth
  • Relationship to confirmation bias: related but distinct; motivation drives seeking supportive evidence rather than evaluating all evidence impartially
  • Practical concern in research and debate: researchers or speakers may selectively gather or interpret data to confirm what they already believe

• Disagreements: belief vs. attitude (Stevenson’s framework)

  • Disagreements in belief: competing beliefs about how things are; can be resolved by examining relevant facts and evidence
  • Disagreements in attitude: opposed desires or evaluations toward an issue (e.g., supporting vs opposing a policy), often harder to resolve because attitudes influence what evidence is acceptable
  • Interplay with evidence: beliefs determine which evidence is considered relevant; attitudes influence how evidence is weighed

Critical reading and self-awareness in argument analysis

• Questions to guide reading and analysis
  • Is the author presenting a challenge to morality or reacting to a challenge? (Stevenson’s context in the chapter)
  • Are there disputes in belief or disputes in attitude at the core of the disagreement?
  • Is there evidence of bias (confirmation bias or motivated reasoning) in the presentation or interpretation of data?
  • How does the author handle emotion and reason in moral discourse? Is there an emphasis on open-minded scrutiny?
• The open-mindedness stance
  • Open-mindedness does not mean accepting all views; it means being willing to consider alternatives and to defend one’s position with reasoned argument
  • The goal is to be able to justify positions and to adjust beliefs when credible evidence warrants adjustment

Module 2 preview: Challenges to morality (editorial framing)

• Textbook structure and editors
  • Ethics, introductory anthology: a compilation of essays on ethics
  • Editor Stephen Khan (though not the sole author) arranges essays under thematic headings
  • Concept of an anthology: a compilation, not a single-author textbook
• What is a “challenge to morality”?
  • Challenges to morality question the validity, relevance, or necessity of moral principles
  • Questions about the source and nature of morality: tradition, God, human constructs, or other foundations
  • Debates about whether morality is essential for human flourishing or well-being
  • The debate about the relationship between science and morality: whether science can or should determine moral truths
• The “is/ought” boundary (Hume) and the science-morality tension
  • Is-ought problem: facts about the natural world do not straightforwardly yield moral conclusions
  • David Hume’s claim: moral values arise from sentiment, not from empirical facts
  • Opposing view: science as a moral enterprise that aims to relieve suffering and improve life, suggesting a role for values in scientific inquiry
  • The tension: values are not physical properties; science investigates physical properties; thus, some argue science is value-neutral and cannot resolve moral disputes
• Stevenson’s corrective position (as the reading for today’s lecture argues)
  • Stevenson contends that ethical disagreement often involves factual disputes and can be resolved by following relevant evidence
  • He also argues that science can indirectly influence moral attitudes once beliefs are updated by evidence
  • The two-part claim:
  • Scientific method can resolve disagreements in beliefs (facts about what is the case)
  • Science can guide the conversation toward attitudes, but attitudes are harder to change due to entrenched preferences and biases
• Interpersonal vs. personal moral problems in Stevenson’s framework
  • Interpersonal disagreements: between two or more people about what is true; resolved by finding weight of evidence and converging on facts
  • Personal disagreements: about what one ought to do in a given situation; more about individual decisions and values
• Practical example: the COVID-19 reopening debate (illustrative, not a value verdict)
  • Mary vs. John disagreement in belief about whether to reopen the economy
  • Evidence-driven resolution: compare economic impact vs. public health outcomes; weigh the burden of restrictions against the benefits of protection
  • Important caution: science is not monolithic; different scientists may interpret data differently; “follow the science” can misrepresent the diversity of scientific opinions
• What Stevenson implies for critical reading and debate
  • Use scientific evidence to inform moral reasoning, but recognize that science does not alone settle all moral questions
  • Distinguish disputes in belief from disputes in attitude and acknowledge how attitudes shape the reception of evidence
  • Acknowledge the complex interplay between facts, values, and emotions in moral discourse

Book structure and upcoming readings

• Next reading assignment for Wednesday
  • Tom Reagan, How Not to Answer Moral Questions (in the Blackboard “additional reading” folder for the current edition)
  • Task: read with an eye toward identifying the specific challenge to morality Reagan is addressing and how it fits into Khan’s section on Challenges to Morality
• Questions to prepare for the next class
  • What challenge to morality is Reagan’s essay addressing?
  • How does Reagan argue about the proper way to answer moral questions, and how does that relate to Stevenson’s framework?

Practical implications for exam preparation

• Focus on core concepts
  • Definitions and distinctions: belief, attitude, value
  • Types of disagreements: in belief vs in attitude
  • Cognitive biases described: Dunning-Kruger effect, confirmation bias, availability error, motivated reasoning
  • The is/ought problem and the science-morality debate
  • Stevenson’s two-part answer: belief-based resolution via evidence; attitudes influenced by beliefs and evidence, with potential indirect change
• Use concrete examples from the lecture
  • The Mary-Joe slap scenarios illustrate how context changes moral assessment based on factual details
  • The COVID reopening debate as a real-world case showing how evidence can influence beliefs and how attitudes respond to changing beliefs
• Study strategy reminders
  • Read the two specified textbook essays carefully (Driver and Raschals)
  • Practice identifying whether a claim is a belief or an attitude and what evidence would be relevant to resolve it
  • Be wary of assuming science resolves all moral questions; recognize both its power and its limits
• Administrative reminders
  • Quiz times and format: 15 minutes, 10 MC questions, from the textbook readings
  • Page numbers may differ across editions; rely on title and author to locate essays
  • No role call in class anymore; email if you have questions about upcoming material or assignments