Seeing as I've had a recent shift in moral thinking due to gaining some new understanding I find that metaethics and moral psychology are once again at the forefront of my attention, as such I thought I'd provide some of the most fascinating results of psychological studies...
Strangely enough, I think some of these "moral quirks" could be used as pretty effective evidence against the existence of a God, or at least against a competent God.
1. people were asked to choose one of several panty-hose displayed in a row. When asked to explain their preferences, people gave sensible enough answers, referring to the relevant features of the items chosen—superior knit, sheerness, elasticity, etc. But their choices had nothing to do with such features, as the items on display were in fact identical. People simply had a preference for items on the right side of the display (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977).
2. Whether we judge an action as 'intentional' or not often depends on the judged goodness or badness of the action, not the internal states of the agent. This is known as the Knobe effect, for example: A businessman is holding a board meeting, he is out to make as much money as possible, his adviser says to him "Plan X will create maximum profits but will also harm the environment" the businessman says "Sure go ahead, I don't care about the environment I just want to make as much money as possible" - When asked whether or not he intentionally harmed the environment 90% of people said "Yes, he did intentionally harm the environment" - However, when the situation was turned on it's head and the adviser said "Plan x will create maximum profits and will also help the environment" only 30% of people said "Yes, he intentionally helped the environment"
3. Our moral judgments are significantly affected by whether we are in the presence of freshly baked bread or a low concentration of fart spray that only the subconscious mind can detect.9
4. The likelihood of a parole board to grant parole to an inmate varies as much as 60% consistently, based on the length of time since their last lunch break. This means that the relationship of the hearing relative to their last break has a more significant impact than the behaviors or crimes of the inmate.
5. Magnets being placed over different sections of the brain affect our moral judgements.
6. People tend to insist that certain things are right or wrong even when a hypothetical situation is constructed that they admit they can give no reason for their judgment
And perhaps the most stunning:
7. Decisions about 'moral rules' (deontology) and consequences or maximum good (utilitarianism) are produced by entirely different portions of our brains, the former from our "chimp brains" and the latter by our more recently evolved neo-cortex. We have not one, but two conflicting moral systems.
Strangely enough, I think some of these "moral quirks" could be used as pretty effective evidence against the existence of a God, or at least against a competent God.
1. people were asked to choose one of several panty-hose displayed in a row. When asked to explain their preferences, people gave sensible enough answers, referring to the relevant features of the items chosen—superior knit, sheerness, elasticity, etc. But their choices had nothing to do with such features, as the items on display were in fact identical. People simply had a preference for items on the right side of the display (Nisbett and Wilson, 1977).
2. Whether we judge an action as 'intentional' or not often depends on the judged goodness or badness of the action, not the internal states of the agent. This is known as the Knobe effect, for example: A businessman is holding a board meeting, he is out to make as much money as possible, his adviser says to him "Plan X will create maximum profits but will also harm the environment" the businessman says "Sure go ahead, I don't care about the environment I just want to make as much money as possible" - When asked whether or not he intentionally harmed the environment 90% of people said "Yes, he did intentionally harm the environment" - However, when the situation was turned on it's head and the adviser said "Plan x will create maximum profits and will also help the environment" only 30% of people said "Yes, he intentionally helped the environment"
3. Our moral judgments are significantly affected by whether we are in the presence of freshly baked bread or a low concentration of fart spray that only the subconscious mind can detect.9
4. The likelihood of a parole board to grant parole to an inmate varies as much as 60% consistently, based on the length of time since their last lunch break. This means that the relationship of the hearing relative to their last break has a more significant impact than the behaviors or crimes of the inmate.
5. Magnets being placed over different sections of the brain affect our moral judgements.
6. People tend to insist that certain things are right or wrong even when a hypothetical situation is constructed that they admit they can give no reason for their judgment
And perhaps the most stunning:
7. Decisions about 'moral rules' (deontology) and consequences or maximum good (utilitarianism) are produced by entirely different portions of our brains, the former from our "chimp brains" and the latter by our more recently evolved neo-cortex. We have not one, but two conflicting moral systems.
.
