This hasn’t been demonstrated to my knowledge though, and I’m otherwise inclined to believe that people who spend their days thinking about ethics in the abstract, are simply better at coming up with rationales for their instinctive feelings.
I think it more likely they’re better at coming up with rationales to ignore their instinctive feelings.
I think that someone can believe that their instinctive feelings are an approximation to what is ethical, then try to formalize it, then conclude that they have identified areas where the approximation is in error. So their ethics code could be highly based on their instinctive feelings without following them 100% of the time.
That seems unlikely. People’s instinctive feelings are generally pretty selfish. (Small sample size, obviously. I think 2 other people where I’ve spoken with enough about this kind of thing to judge.)
No, but I don’t see why children should have an effect; favoring your children over strangers is no less selfish than favoring yourself over strangers, and both are strong instincts.
By instinctive I just mean system 1; the judgments made before you take time to think through what you should do.
No, but I don’t see why children should have an effect; favoring your children over strangers is no less selfish than favoring yourself over strangers, and both are strong instincts.
I had intended to draw attention to the phenomenon of favouring one’s children over oneself. It appears I was right about the test demographic.
And “no less selfish”? At what point would you consider the widening circle to be “less selfish”? To favour your village over others, your country over others, humanity over animals; are these are all no less selfish? Is nothing unselfish but a life of exaninition and unceasing service to everyone and everything but oneself?
By instinctive I just mean system 1; the judgments made before you take time to think through what you should do.
System 1 is susceptible to training—that is what training is. We may be born with the neurological mechanism, but not its entire content. “Instinct” more usually means (quoting Wikipedia) “performed without being based upon prior experience”. A human without prior experience is a baby.
Standard definitions of system 1 describe it as ‘instinctive’, but if you need a separate definition of instinctive responses, ‘untrained system 1 responses’ works.
At what point would you consider the widening circle to be “less selfish”? To favour your village over others, your country over others, humanity over animals; are these are all no less selfish? Is nothing unselfish but a life of exaninition and unceasing service to everyone and everything but oneself?
That depends. Any of those things can be unselfish, if you’re doing it because you think it’s a good thing to do independent of whether it’s an outcome/action you like, and the wider the circle the more likely that’s the motivation. If it’s based on ‘I like these people and want them to be happy, therefore I will take this action’ that’s still selfish.
Lest this sound like I’m saying anything that isn’t done for abstract reasons is selfish, I’d contrast it with things done for reasons of compassion. The lines there can get blurry when the people you’re feeling compassion for are in your ingroup, but things like the place-quarters-here-for-adorable-sad-children variety of charity are clearly trying to induce compassionate motivation (and it works).
From conversations I have had with my own parents (not as comprehensive or in-depth, but heartfelt), it seemed pretty clear that the parenting instinct is much more ‘these kids are mine and I will take care of them come hell or high water’ than a compassionate reflex.
I think it more likely they’re better at coming up with rationales to ignore their instinctive feelings.
I think that someone can believe that their instinctive feelings are an approximation to what is ethical, then try to formalize it, then conclude that they have identified areas where the approximation is in error. So their ethics code could be highly based on their instinctive feelings without following them 100% of the time.
That seems unlikely. People’s instinctive feelings are generally pretty selfish. (Small sample size, obviously. I think 2 other people where I’ve spoken with enough about this kind of thing to judge.)
None of your sample were people with children, then?
And there’s also the question of what is “instinctive” versus whatever the opposite is. What is this distinction and how do you tell?
No, but I don’t see why children should have an effect; favoring your children over strangers is no less selfish than favoring yourself over strangers, and both are strong instincts.
By instinctive I just mean system 1; the judgments made before you take time to think through what you should do.
I had intended to draw attention to the phenomenon of favouring one’s children over oneself. It appears I was right about the test demographic.
And “no less selfish”? At what point would you consider the widening circle to be “less selfish”? To favour your village over others, your country over others, humanity over animals; are these are all no less selfish? Is nothing unselfish but a life of exaninition and unceasing service to everyone and everything but oneself?
System 1 is susceptible to training—that is what training is. We may be born with the neurological mechanism, but not its entire content. “Instinct” more usually means (quoting Wikipedia) “performed without being based upon prior experience”. A human without prior experience is a baby.
Standard definitions of system 1 describe it as ‘instinctive’, but if you need a separate definition of instinctive responses, ‘untrained system 1 responses’ works.
That depends. Any of those things can be unselfish, if you’re doing it because you think it’s a good thing to do independent of whether it’s an outcome/action you like, and the wider the circle the more likely that’s the motivation. If it’s based on ‘I like these people and want them to be happy, therefore I will take this action’ that’s still selfish.
Lest this sound like I’m saying anything that isn’t done for abstract reasons is selfish, I’d contrast it with things done for reasons of compassion. The lines there can get blurry when the people you’re feeling compassion for are in your ingroup, but things like the place-quarters-here-for-adorable-sad-children variety of charity are clearly trying to induce compassionate motivation (and it works).
From conversations I have had with my own parents (not as comprehensive or in-depth, but heartfelt), it seemed pretty clear that the parenting instinct is much more ‘these kids are mine and I will take care of them come hell or high water’ than a compassionate reflex.