Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Response to Thought Experiment 18: Rationality Demands

7/24/2015

2 Comments

 
Picture
Remember when I shared this picture during my discussion of the mind vs. the body? I said it was a shame our brains didn't get pumped up like this when we use them a lot so that we would be sure ideas didn't reside in some other dualist plane of existence. We'll need to remember this as we dive into this week's thought experiment, but before I go too deep, let's remind ourselves what's being considered.

-------------------------------------------------
     Sophia Maximus has always prided herself on her rationality. She would never knowingly act contrary to the dictates of reason. Of course, she understands that some of the basic motivations to action are not rational - such as love, taste, and character. But not being rational is not the same as being irrational. It is neither rational nor irrational to prefer strawberries to raspberries. But, given the preference, it is irrational to buy raspberries when strawberries are just as cheap.
     Right now, however, she is in something of a fix. A very intelligent friend persuaded her that it would be perfectly rational to set off a bomb which will kill many innocent people without any obvious benefit, such as saving other lives. She feels sure that there must be something wrong with her friend's argument. But rationally, she cannot see it. What it worse, the argument suggests she should set off the bomb as soon as possible, so thinking longer is not an option.
     In the past she has always thought it wrong to reject good rational arguments in favour of hunches and intuitions. Yet if she follows reason in this case, she can't help but feel she will be doing a terrible wrong. Should she knowingly follow the less rational path, or trust reason over feeling and detonate the bomb?

Baggini, J., The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 2005, p. 52.
-------------------------------------------------

Just as the mind and body aren't separate, neither are their products: reason and feeling. Each are highly related to the other with bidirectional feedback between them, all occurring inside a single organism. Sophia has set up a false dichotomy by insisting she should follow one at the expense of another. She should instead recognise that the conflict between her reason and feelings are a warning sign that one of them needs to change. In my post, What's Causing These Emotions, I pointed out how our emotions are in fact a product of our thoughts:

An influential theory of emotion is that of Lazarus: emotion is a disturbance that occurs in the following order: 1) cognitive appraisal - the individual assesses the event cognitively, which cues the emotion; 2) physiological changes - the cognitive reaction starts biological changes such as increased heart rate or pituitary adrenal response; 3) action - the individual feels the emotion and chooses how to react. Lazarus stressed that the quality and intensity of emotions are controlled through cognitive processes.

These thoughts that drive our emotions aren't always driven with words though. When I wrote later about how we are Learning to Tame Your Elephant, I noted that:

We also have unconscious cognitive appraisals - cognitive appraisals without words. This is how all animals think. The rise of language and an inner voice provides a loud layer of consciousness that allows us to “talk over” our emotions, but that should not be used as an excuse to ignore them. It is easy to lose touch with our emotions when we do not listen to our bodies by noticing all the subtle sensations we feel. We can learn to focus our attention though and hold an internal (or external) dialogue to figure out our unspoken cognitive appraisals. We must do so if we want to regulate them and change them.

Using these ideas, we see in this week's thought experiment that Sophia is experiencing a disequilibrium between the new rational argument to bomb people and the unconscious cognitive appraisal that is driving her feelings to reject such a bombing. She is momentarily stuck in the delay between her two systems of thought that need some time to catch up to one another. What are these two systems? As I also reported in Learning to Tame Your Elephant, "in Daniel Kahneman's latest book, Thinking Fast and Slow, Kahneman describes the two different ways the brain forms thoughts:
  • System 1: fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, subconscious
  • System 2: slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious
System 1 - the Elephant. System 2 - the Rider. We can't get rid of the Elephant because a) that's not the way evolution works, but more importantly b) it enables us to take instantaneous action whenever the situation requires it - when we touch a hot stove, when a car swerves towards us, when an assailant attacks us. Our system 1 quickly gets us out of harm's way. It is easy to rely on, and it would be impossible to let slow, calculating system 2 tackle all our questions. We would be wracked with doubt and inefficiency. We need to appreciate our Elephant. It seems to have a few innate or universal judgments already programmed into it at birth, but we also feed it with new rules of thumb from our experiences and we let our system 2's create new intuitive judgments that can be passed on to system 1 for faster action (such as when professional speakers go from fearing a crowd to loving the sight of one after a bit of practice). This is a highly efficient design, but one that can be used inefficiently when we don't take the time to let our system 2 evaluate what it has wrought in our system 1. When our youthful experiences leave our system 1 full of cognitive biases such as anchoring, loss-aversion, confirmation bias, framing issues, or the fundamental attribution error, we end up making faulty decisions based on poor emotional clues."

In Sophia's case, her system 1 emotional clues are trying to lead her away from making a decision based on a system 2 argument that may or may not be right. We aren't told the elements of her friend's argument that make it "perfectly rational to set off a bomb which will kill many innocent people without any obvious benefit," but from that description alone it seems obvious that the argument must be false. If it's not, then with time Sophia's feelings will come around to be aligned with a new cognitive appraisal. Until her feelings and thoughts are aligned, however, she would be rash to act on either one of them. If forced to act NOW, she would do better to rely on her system 1 feelings, which have been built up over her lifetime of thoughtful judgment. That's the actual rational thing to do.

What about you? What are you feeling about this rational argument of mine? Or do you need to sleep on it to know for sure?

2 Comments
winthrop staples
7/24/2015 11:55:50 am

Precisely my analysis of the 'intuition' that is alleged to be contrary or opposite to logical consequentialist means of deciding whether an action is moral or not debate. What I have said is that intuitional reluctance to accept some rational sounding arguments are probably often based on subconscious awareness of similar circumstances to the thought experiment under discussion in which the overall effect was negative ie more deaths, pain and suffering for more people etc. Those with very heavily scientific personalities (obsessed with why or how things work, the truth - as opposed to what they might wish the truth to be) actually do think when intuitional dissonance occurs "H'mm what have I forgotten." In other words the often politically correct demonizing of utilitarian moral judgment calculation is just plain wrong in every sense. And yes I agree that reflexive or intuitional moral judgments, or 'feelings' are obviously often based on evolutionary selection for correct most of the time 'answers' given common scenarios.

Reply
@EdGibney link
7/25/2015 10:08:04 am

"H'mm what have I forgotten." That's a great summary of the reason so many utilitarian calculations have been done poorly. I agree--demonise the certainty some feel about their uncertain calculations, but don't demonise the process of trying to weigh plusses and minuses. Thanks for chiming in, Win!

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    February 2025
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    April 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    January 2023
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.