Problems for Internalism in Moral Psychology

Introduction to Internalism

• The video focuses on internalism, particularly the problems it faces.
• Two specific issues are discussed:
  • Problem of Amoralism
  • Problem of Conflicted People
• A brief review of internalism's two forms:
  • Simple motivational judgment internalism
  • Complex motivational judgment internalism

Types of Internalism

• Simple Motivational Judgment Internalism:

  • Definition: The condition for a thought that one ought to do action A to serve as motivation is simply having that thought.
  • Explanation: If you think you ought to do A, you must have motivation to do A.
  • Assertion: Anyone thinking they ought to do A has motivation to act accordingly, making it a necessary condition.

• Complex Motivational Judgment Internalism:

  • Definition: The condition under which one's thought that they ought to do action A is motivational involves having that thought and also satisfying another condition, C.
  • Condition C could be:
  • Practical rationality
  • Moral perceptivity
  • Psychological normality (as noted by philosopher Bjornsson)
  • Assertion: If a person satisfies the condition C and thinks they ought to do A, they have motivation to do A.

Problem of Amoralism

• Definition of Amoralism:

  • Introduced by David Brink; refers to an individual who can think they ought to perform action A but lack motivation to do so.
  • Example: Psychopaths or sociopaths, who typically lack empathy and may act immorally despite understanding moral principles.

• Example Illustration of Psychopathy:

  • Psychopath's reflection:
  • When asked about feeling remorse for killing, one psychopath compared it to feeling sorry for killing a bug, indicating a complete lack of emotional response and moral motivation.

• Argument Against Internalism:

  • Premise 1: If motivational judgment internalism is true, no one can think they ought to do A and lack motivation to do it.
  • Premise 2: If no one can think they ought to do A without motivation, then an amoralist cannot exist.
  • Premise 3: Amoralists do exist, exemplified by psychopaths.
  • Conclusion: Therefore, motivational judgment internalism is false.

• Limitations of the Argument:

  • Brink's argument precedes the clear distinction between simple and complex internalism.
  • The first premise is challenged by complex internalism, which allows for the possibility of someone contemplating an action without motivation due to practical irrationality.
  • Hence, the amoralism problem primarily challenges simple motivational judgment internalism rather than general internalism.

Problem of Conflicted Persons

• Definition of Conflicted Person:

  • Someone experiencing conflicting motivational influences, where one influence (love) can override another (moral obligation).

• Example Illustration of a Conflicted Person:

  • A mother, whose love for her son (Sebastian) conflicts with a societal moral belief (that the forest is sacred and no one should enter).
  • Scenario:
    • Upon realizing her son is in danger (bitten by a snake and unconscious), she feels my loving motivation to save him vs. her moral obligation to stay out of the forest.
    • Her love may ultimately override her obligation leading her to act against her moral judgment.

• Argument Against Internalism:

  • Premise 1: If motivational judgment internalism is true, no conflicted person can think they ought to do A and lack motivation.
  • Premise 2: If no conflicted person can think they ought to do A without motivation, then they do not exist.
  • Premise 3: Conflicted people can (e.g., the mother) exist.
  • Conclusion: Hence, motivational judgment internalism is false.

• Clarifications on Rationality:

  • The conflicted mother does not need to be practically irrational.
  • She can be rational, morally perceptive, and psychologically normal while being conflicted.
  • This indicates that rationality does not preclude conflicting motivations, reinforcing the claim against internalism.

Conclusion on the Arguments

• Summary of the two problems for internalism:
  • Problem of Amoralism
  • Problem of Conflicted Persons
• Encouragement to evaluate the validity of both arguments:
  • Are they genuine problems for internalism?
  • Consider potential objections or solutions to these problems.
• Note: The second problem (conflicted persons) is presented by Professor Velasquez, distinct from Brink's argument.

Reflection

• Students are encouraged to think critically about these discussions and their implications for internalism.
• Consider personal viewpoints on the existence and effects of amoralism and conflicted motivations in moral judgment.
• Assess potential resolutions for the proposed problems of internalism and engage with the arguments critically.