Ethical Decision Making and Moral Philosophy

Conscience, Emotions, and Moral Decision Making

• Conscience and emotion are drivers of moral behavior, but they are shaped by conditioning and experiences.

  • The speaker argues that you’re taught not to treat people a certain way, which informs why you act when conscience is bothered.
  • Emotions are not separate from moral reasoning; they are a product of psychological needs and conditioning, just like conscience is.
  • Example: raised in a bigoted racist home vs. raised to value equal moral worth of all people lead to different emotional reactions to witnessing harm.
  • Question to apply: whenever an emotional response or conscience is triggered, ask: Why do I have this emotion? Why does my conscience bother me about this action? Seek the underlying reasons.

• The moral psychology of a simple action scenario shows how reasons shape our moral judgments:

  • Scenario: you observe someone with the question mark (you) in a setting where lying to gain advantage triggers conscience.
  • Initial line of reasoning: you were taught not to lie; why is that the case? The reasons point to harms caused by lies, such as eroding trust and increasing conflict in a society that relies on truth for cooperation.
  • Truth and trust: truth is valuable because it enables trust and cooperation, which are essential for social stability; a society based on lies conflicts and lacks trust.
  • Conclusion: Emotions and conscience are important but cannot be sole indicators; must reason through the underlying principles.

• Thought experiment introduction: the moral decision landscape is complex and context-dependent; the exercise helps reveal the reasons behind our judgments.

  • The trolley problem: you are in a risk yard with an out-of-control train headed toward five workers on one track who cannot get off. You can flip a lever to divert the train to a track on the left, where one worker cannot get off.
  • Core question: would you pull the lever to save five by sacrificing one? No explicit "right" answer; the exercise explores reasoning and competing values.
  • Real-time survey often cited: ~90% of students choose to pull the lever (kill 1 to save 5); ~10% refuse to act.
  • Why people switch: it mitigates harm, aligns with the idea of the greater good, or reduces overall harm.
  • In some responses, people worry about responsibility and personal moral principles, e.g., not wanting to be responsible for any death, or feeling the weight of potential legal liability.
  • Personal familiarity affects choices: if the one on the left is a family member, many would hesitate or refuse to act. Legal liability concerns also influence decisions.
  • This thought experiment highlights the tension between:
  • outward-looking duties to others (considering the plight of the five) and inward-looking duties to oneself (personal conscience, fear of being condemned or sued).

• Variants and extensions of the trolley problem discussed:

  • First variant: five vs. one with unknown individuals tends toward utilitarian choice (kill 1 to save 5).
  • Variant with the elderly vs. a young child: when the five are elderly and the lone individual is a young child, response often shifts toward sparing the child due to the young having a longer life ahead; this reveals how perceived value and vulnerability influence judgments.
  • Pedestrian overpass variant: pushing a large man onto the tracks to stop the train would save five but would be a grave injustice to the man pushed; this challenges the lever-pull justification and probes the moral difference between indirect action (pulling a lever) and direct physical harm (pushing someone).
  • Key question arising from variants: when does the good of the many justify harming the few, and when should justice for individuals prevail over the greater good?
  • Practical considerations in moral decisions:
  • Distance and relationship: proximity to those affected changes perceived obligation.
  • Personal stakes: self-interest and potential legal liability influence decisions.
  • Societal values: age, vulnerability, and social roles (family, coworkers) shift the calculus.

• Major tensions in moral decision making (two recurring themes):

  • Tension 1: The good of the many vs. justice for the one or the few.
  • When is it permissible to pursue the greater good at the expense of the few?
  • When should justice for individuals override the greater good?
  • Tension 2: Governing authority vs. individual liberty.
  • When is it legitimate for authorities to limit personal liberties for the common good?
  • How do we balance public safety, laws, and personal rights?

• Emerging ethical framework and vocabulary from the session:

  • Descriptive ethics: describes how people actually think and behave morally (facts about beliefs and practices).
  • Normative ethics: prescribes how people ought to act; asks what should be done.
  • Metaethics: studies the meaning and logical structure of moral beliefs; asks what makes an action right and whether a principle is justified.
  • Applied ethics: practical application of moral norms to specific issues, including professional fields like medicine and law.

• Descriptive vs normative ethics: examples

  • Descriptive: "John lied to Mary" is a factual claim about behavior.
  • Normative: "John was wrong to lie to Mary" or "John should not have lied to Mary" expresses a value judgment.

• Facts vs values in ethical reasoning:

  • Facts: empirical, verifiable aspects of the world (e.g., it is raining, my truck is gray); can be observed or measured.
  • Truth of a claim about a fact: the claim is true iff the fact holds, e.g., ext{Claim: }"It is raining" \iff ext{Fact: }\text{It is raining}
  • Values: judgments about what is good, bad, right, or wrong; not empirically verifiable in the same way as facts.
  • Distinction example: "The knife is sharp" (fact) vs. "The knife is a good kitchen tool" (value).
  • The challenge: proving truth for value statements is not the same as for factual claims, but values still guide moral reasoning.

• Instrumental vs intrinsic value:

  • Instrumental value: valued as a means to an end (e.g., a knife’s usefulness in cutting; money as a means to purchase goods).
  • Intrinsic value: valued for its own sake (ends in themselves) such as happiness, health, or other goods that are valued independently of their consequences.
  • Aristotle’s view: happiness is an intrinsic end; things like health and wealth are pursued because they are believed to promote happiness.

• The preeminence of reason in ethics:

  • Reason should guide moral decision making, not just emotions or conscience.
  • Emotions provide reasons; we must uncover the reasons behind our emotions.
  • Moral principles should have universal significance and be impartial, applying to all in similar situations.
  • Norms should be law-like (normative) and aimed at broadly applicable moral guidelines.

• Plato, Socrates, and the foundations of moral reasoning (Crito and Phaedo in brief):

  • Socrates is accused of corrupting youth and atheism; he is awaiting execution after a legal process.
  • Crito (a friend) urges escape from prison to avoid death; Socrates insists on evaluating whether escape would be just.
  • Core moral principles Socrates endorses:
  • P1: One ought never to harm another.
  • P2: One ought to keep one's promises.
  • P3: One ought to obey and respect parents and teachers.
  • The Laws personification argument: escaping would harm social order and the authority of the law that protected Socrates; escaping would amount to breaking a social contract and disrespect for the state that educated and protected him.
  • Socrates’ reasoning structure uses premises (P1, P2, P3) to derive a conclusion (C):
  • P1: One ought never harm another.
  • Escaping would harm society (premise derived from P1).
  • Therefore, one ought not to escape prison (C).
  • P2: One ought to keep promises.
  • Escaping would break a promise.
  • Therefore, one ought not to escape prison (C).
  • P3: One ought to obey and respect parents and teachers.
  • Escaping would disobey the state as the ultimate parent/teacher.
  • Therefore, one ought not to escape prison (C).
  • The emphasis is on reasoning with reasons (not emotion) to justify moral conclusions.

• Practical takeaways for the course and lecture structure

  • Four major ethics categories (descriptive, normative, metaethics, applied) and how they relate to moral decision making.
  • The importance of asking for reasons and seeking universal, impartial principles.
  • The role of scenarios like the trolley problem in exploring how we justify actions under moral theories (utilitarianism, deontological duty, virtue considerations).

• Core ideas to prepare for module two and beyond

  • Distinguish between what is (descriptive ethics) and what ought to be (normative ethics).
  • Understand how facts and values interplay in moral reasoning, and how to evaluate value claims.
  • Be able to articulate arguments in the form of premises and conclusions (P1, P2, …, C) as Socrates does in the Crito.
  • Reflect on the balance between the good of the many and justice for the few, and when each should prevail.

• Key terms to remember

  • Conscience, emotions, utilitarianism, deontology, virtue ethics (implied by discussions of intrinsic/extrinsic value and universal norms), instrumental vs intrinsic value, truth, fact, value, normative ethics, descriptive ethics, metaethics, applied ethics, social contract, legality, liability.

• Quick recall prompts for exam preparation

  • Why are conscience and emotions not sufficient alone for moral decision making?
  • How does the trolley problem illustrate utilitarian reasoning? What objections might be raised?
  • What is the difference between instrumental and intrinsic value? Give examples.
  • What are the four branches of ethics, and what does each study?
  • How does Socrates justify not escaping in Crito? List the premises and the conclusion.
  • How do facts differ from values, and how do we assess truth in value statements?

• Reading and assignment reminders

  • Read the Critical Thinking Web tutorials.
  • Read the PDF What is Water? by David Foster Wallace.
  • Prepare to discuss in module two: critical thinking and moral decision making; consider how the themes discussed connect to real-world issues like health care, immigration, and war.

• Notation and formulas to review

  • Utilitarian principle (summary): maximize the good for the greatest number
  • ext{Utilitarianism: } ext{maximize } extstyle igg( ext{the good of the greatest number} igg) \ ext{or} \ ext{maximize } \, \sum{i=1}^{n} ui
  • Trolley problem logic: when you pull the lever to divert the train, the action affects one person to save five; when not acting, five die.
  • Socrates’ argument structure (example):
  • P1: One ought not to harm others.
  • P2: Escaping from prison would harm society.
  • C: Therefore, one ought not to escape prison.
  • Logical form: (P1 \, \land \, P2) \rightarrow C
  • Truth about facts vs. values:
  • Facts: good grounds for empirical verification; truth of a factual claim follows factual states of the world.
  • Values: not empirical in the same way; truth of value claims is argued through reasoning about intrinsic/instrumental value and overall normative considerations.

• Final reminder for exam readiness

  • Be prepared to trace how an emotion or conscience leads to a chain of reasons.
  • Be comfortable distinguishing descriptive vs normative claims.
  • Be able to articulate a reasoned argument using premises and a conclusion (as Socrates did).
  • Be ready to discuss the four ethical branches and how they apply to real-world scenarios.

Title

Moral Decision Making: Conscience, Emotions, Thought Experiments, and Foundational Ethics (Transcript Notes)