I just came back from a workshop and I have had the impression that there is too much contrary evidence for the dual-process/path/system approach to use it for the investigation of moral decision making - at least, without having a bad conscience. But what do you guys think? A very interesting idea that came up is to continue talking about the dual-process/path/system because it makes it easier for us to communicate. But doesn't it rather confuse us to talk about a model as if it described how the mind works without having any proper evidence? By talking about dual-process/path/system to describe how people make moral judgments, we implicitly assume that the mind really works like that. I don't know, I am not sure. Maybe you know?
I love philosophy of mind, neuroscience and psychology. However, I'm not familiar on dual processes (path or systems). I can on conjecture that one may be refering to the left and right side of the brain, and the evidence that is shown when the corpus collosum is cut, how they then processes in a distinct matter. One side (the right) sees the big picture. The left side is more analytic and sees the small details. Furthermore, how the right side can make smooth soft lines, but the right side looks as if it creates only out of straight lines. The list of long between differences.
We can reduce it to a millions of processes if we want. The reductionist can reduce it to a single process or synapse. Its like slicing a loaf of bread in half. How arbitrary is that? I agree with you, it is a weird way to think of things in a dualistic manner, process wise. The mind integrates, organizes and creates with all its resources. I just assume a top-down model of mind. I'm not the individual pieces; I'm the integrated whole.
Furthermore, I think your moral concern is apt. Would one process be more blameworthy than another. In addition, how would we punish that process while keeping the other processes free from blame? One process is just another side of the same coin that is me. However, I may be stubborn here. Thoughts?
Maria, perhaps you could post a summary of the dual-process model of morality for us.
Hi Aaron, could you post a copy of the paper you referenced. The link does not seem to work for me. Thanks.
I agree, the dual-process theory simplifies the moral decision making. Greene opposes emotion to rational processes, but this is typical for cognitive psychology I guess. I suppose, emotion and controlled process (as Greene calls them) will both play role in the process of moral judgment. Greene writes the fMRI investigation proves the idea of lateralization of emotional and rational processes, but he used in his experiments moral dilemmas that, no doubt, should arouse strong emotional response it proves nothing. In this month (in May) I plan to perform an experiment to show, that emotional and rational processes involve in moral decision making together. I hope I’ll find evidences for that (P.S. Sorry for my English)
I think that there's considerable evidence by now that supports the dual process model. I recently published a paper that advances the hypothesis that nearly ubiquitous intuition that pharma companies have 'special' obligations with respect to providing lifesaving medicines to the needy is based more on moral emotions than rational judgement. Greenes work continutes to be fascinating, but I personally feel that there is an extraordinary diversity and functional promiscuity in the neuroanatomical circuitry belived to underpin human moral judgment (redundant signallig pathways, etc.)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Moral Philosophy