Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
CONSENSUS STATEMENT CONSENSUS STATEMENT A statement of consensus reached among participants at the Edge The New Science of Morality Conference Washington, CT, June 20-22, 2010 In the last ten years, morality has become a major convergence zone for scholars in the sciences and humanities. The volume of research has increased rapidly, as has the diversity of methods employed. In an effort to take stock of this rapidly changing field, Edge convened a conference in Washington, CT, on June 20-22, 2010. The participants in the conference described their own work, and then attempted to draft a list of points on which all could agree. They reached consensus on the eight points listed below. This Consensus Statement is not intended to speak for all who study morality, nor is it intended to be a definitive pronouncement about morality. Rather, the statement is intended to be a starting point for an Edge Reality Club conversation. It is proposed as a first draft of a partial description of the state of the art, submitted to the research community for commentary and editing. In addition, a forthcoming set of individual statements will highlight areas of disagreement among this statements signatories. Signed by: Roy Baumeister, Florida State University Paul Bloom, Yale University Joshua Greene, Harvard University Jonathan Haidt, University of Virginia Sam Harris, Project Reason Joshua Knobe, Yale University David Pizarro, Cornell University 1) Morality is a natural phenomenon and a cultural phenomenon Like language, sexuality, or music, morality emerges from the interaction of multiple psychological building blocks within each person, and from the interactions of many people within a society. These building blocks are the products of evolution, with natural selection playing a critical role. They are assembled into coherent moralities as individuals mature within a cultural context. The scientific study of morality therefore requires the combined efforts of the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities. 2) Many of the psychological building blocks of morality are innate The word "innate," as we use it in the context of moral cognition, does not mean immutable, operational at birth, or visible in every known culture. It means "organized in advance of experience," although experience can revise that organization to produce variation within and across cultures. Many of the building blocks of morality can be found, in some form, in other primates, including sympathy, friendship, hierarchical relationships, and coalition-building. Many of the building blocks of morality are visible in all human culture, including sympathy, friendship, reciprocity, and the ability to represent others' beliefs and intentions. Some of the building blocks of morality become operational quite early in childhood, such as the capacity to respond with empathy to human suffering, to act altruistically, and to punish those who harm others. 3) Moral judgments are often made intuitively, with little deliberation or conscious weighing of evidence and alternatives Like judgments about the grammaticality of sentences, moral judgments are often experienced as occurring rapidly, effortlessly, and automatically. They occur even when a person cannot articulate reasons for them. 4) Conscious moral reasoning plays multiple roles in our moral lives People often apply moral principles and engage in moral reasoning. For example, people use reasoning to detect moral inconsistencies in others and in themselves, or when moral intuitions conflict, or are absent. Moral reasoning often serves an argumentative function; it is often a preparation for social interaction and persuasion, rather than an open-minded search for the truth. In line with its persuasive function, moral reasoning can have important causal effects interpersonally. Reasons and arguments can establish new principles (e.g., racial equality, animal rights) and produce moral change in a society. 5) Moral judgments and values are often at odds with actual behavior People often fail to live up to their consciously-endorsed values. One of the many reasons for the disconnect is that moral action often depends on self-control, which is a fluctuating and limited resource. Doing what is morally right, especially when contrary to selfish desires, often depends on an effortful inner struggle with an uncertain outcome. 6) Many areas of the brain are recruited for moral cognition, yet there is no "moral center" in the brain Moral judgments depend on the operation of multiple neural systems that are distinct but that interact with one another, sometimes in a competitive fashion. Many of these systems play comparable roles in non-moral contexts. For example, there are systems that support the implementation of cognitive control, the representation of mental states, and the affective representation of value in both moral and non-moral contexts. 7) Morality varies across individuals and cultures People within each culture vary in their moral judgments and behaviors. Some of this variation is due to heritable differences in temperament (for example, agreeableness or conscientiousness) or in morally-relevant capacities (such as one’s ability to take the perspective of others). Some of this difference is due to variations in childhood experiences; some is due to the roles and contexts influencing a person at the moment of judgment or action. Morality varies across cultures in many ways, including the overall moral domain (what kinds of things get regulated), as well as specific moral norms, practices, values, and institutions. Moral virtues and values are strongly influenced by local and historical circumstances, such as the nature of economic activity, form of government, frequency of warfare, and strength of institutions for dispute resolution. 8) Moral systems support human flourishing, to varying degrees The emergence of morality allowed much larger groups of people to live together and reap the benefits of trust, trade, shared security, long term planning, and a variety of other non-zero-sum interactions. Some moral systems do this better than others, and therefore it is possible to make some comparative judgments. The existence of moral diversity as an empirical fact does not support an "anything-goes" version of moral relativism in which all moral systems must be judged to be equally good. We note, however, that moral evaluations across cultures must be made cautiously because there are multiple justifiable visions of flourishing and wellbeing, even within Western societies. Furthermore, because of the power of moral intuitions to influence reasoning, social scientists studying morality are at risk of being biased by their own culturally shaped values and desires. I break the eight into these groups in order to separate the three in Group B. A. Natural Morality 1) Morality is a natural phenomenon and a cultural phenomenon. 2) Many of the psychological building blocks of morality are innate. 6) Many areas of the brain are recruited for moral cognition, yet there is no "moral center" in the brain. B. Judgment & Reasoning 3) Moral judgments are often made intuitively, with little deliberation or conscious weighing of evidence and alternatives. 4) Conscious moral reasoning plays multiple roles in our moral lives. 5) Moral judgments and values are often at odds with actual behavior. C. Culture & Flourishing 7) Morality varies across individuals and cultures. 8) Moral systems support human flourishing, to varying degrees. Could some members of this list agree to tell the "Consensus" group that we agree with the eight "Consensus" statements, as far as they go, and wonder whether they could agree with four more statements on which we (whoever signs on) have a consensus? This would respond to their appeal to the scholarly community for "commentary and editing." * Moral reasoning at its best is not post hoc rationalization …though some (who knows how much) of what looks like moral reasoning is in fact merely post hoc rationalization, confirming our biases and/or shoring up our loyalties. * Moral reasoning can go well or poorly …in the sense that we can sometimes or often be sloppy, inconsistent, and/or blind to important matters – but it is also possible to reason well in the sense that we (a) honestly look for holes in our reasoning, (b) attempt carefully to weight competing considerations, some of which conflict with our preferences and loyalties, (c) take a long-term and indirect-effect view of the matters we are considering, and (d) genuinely endeavor to take properly into account the perspectives of the least well off and most negatively affected; reasoning well takes training, but moral reasoning at its best is one especially apt use of parts of the neocortex and of our complex social functioning. * Moral reasoning – when it is conscious – can be an effortful and energy-expensive process – but it can be done well …even though in fact much organism-energy is dedicated in some situations and contexts to realizing impulses we recognize consciously should be over-ridden, and in such cases reasoning well, let along acting well, can demand a lot from a natural being. * Character formation and moral education, done well, are essential for learning how to reason and act well precisely because our intuitions and gut reactions have not evolved to handle flawlessly or effortlessly the moral climate of the 21st Century. Don