Philosophy 160
Introduction
to Ethics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
Practice Test #2 Essay Questions Example Answers
1.) What is mind reading? What are the two types of mind reading discussed by Nichols in his article?
Mind reading is an ability to recognize the existence and type of mental states had by another person. It is not occult or extra sensory, but consists in inferring the existence and type of mental state another person is experiencing based upon their behavior and one's own knowledge. Nichols discusses two types of mind reading in the paper. In what Nichols describes as "minimal mind reading"--what Wallis has termed "attributional mind reading"--the mind reader uses his or her own knowledge of human mental states and how they would feel in some set of circumstances together with the behavior of another person to recognize the existence and nature of the other person�s mental state. It results in attributions of mental states based upon the mind reader's own speculation of what would cause them to behave in a certain way or how they would feel in some set of circumstances. So, such a report might consist of "I bet she's happy. I would be if that happened to me." In contrast, the second type of mind reading, perspective taking, the mind reader recognizes a mental state of another person by imagining what might cause that other person to behave a certain way, and what that other person believes, desires, etc.. In perspective taking the mind reader steps outside of themselves through imagination to recognize mental states in another person based on that other person having different beliefs, desires or emotions than the mind reader would have in that situation. Such a report might sound like, "He looks scared, even though I don't think he's in danger."
2.) What is contagion theory of altruistic behavior? What is the problem noted by Nichols for contagion theories of altruistic behavior? How does the addition of mind reading to theories of altruistic behavior help address the problem with contagion theory?
Altruistic behavior is behavior by one person towards another that is intended to comfort or help. According to contagion theory a low-level perceptually driven response to distress signals causes one to feel distress. A low-level perceptual process is one in which the person's conscious reasoning and/or awareness does not enter into the process, one only becomes aware of anything when the result of the process becomes conscious. For example, seeing objects in depth is a low-level perceptually driven process because it occurs as a result of a process not involving conscious awareness and/or reasoning--we simple see the objects in depth. Similarly, when we see someone fall down in a painful fashion, we do not consciously reason or in anyway consciously process the information so as to generate our empathetic feelings of discomfort. This empathetic response on the one's part causes one to engage in altruistic behavior. Nichols notes that though contagion can explain an empathetic feeling of distress on the part of an altruistic actor, it cannot explain why the altruistic actor engages in altruistic behavior as opposed to other behaviors that would relieve the feelings of distress--like running away or shutting one's eyes. Mind reading is the ability to recognize the existence and type of mental states had by another person. Mind reading theories suppose that the altruistic actor feels empathetic distress because the altruistic actor recognizes that the other person is in distress. Since the distress in the altruistic actor is caused by recognizing the distress in the other person--and not a low-level perceptual reaction--mind reading can explain why the altruistic actor behaves altruistically. The altruistic actor seeks to alleviate the distress of the other person because it is the explicit recognition of the other person's distress that causes their own empathetic response.
3.) What is a dissociation? How does Nichols use a dissociation to argue in favor of his theory of moral judgments over the VIM theory offered by Blair? Make sure you outline Nichol's and Blair's theories.
James Blair hypothesizes that moral judgment derives from the activation of a Violence Inhibition Mechanism (VIM). On Blair's theory distress cues trigger VIM, resulting in an aversive reaction to the events that activate VIM. Those events are then judged morally wrong based upon the aversive reaction. Unlike Blair's theory, Nichols' theory requires a basic ability to recognize the existence and type of mental states had by another person. Specifically, Nichols supposes that one uses one's knowledge of human mental states and how one would feel in some set of circumstances together with the behavior of that other person. This ability is called minimal mind reading by Nichols (Wallis calls it attributional mind reading.) On Nichols' theory a person uses this minimal mind reading ability to recognize that a person is in distress. This explicit recognition then triggers a concern mechanism on Nichols' theory. The concern mechanism results in the mind reader judging the associated act or situation to be immoral.
A dissociation is segregation of a mental process or processes or a behavioral effect from the rest of a person's usually integrated functions of consciousness, memory, perception, and sensory and motor coordination together with the typical behavioral consequences of such functions. For instance, the capacity of normal individuals for imagining themselves in another�s place, having different beliefs, desires or emotions than they, the person imagining, would have in that situation is often called perspective taking (or perspectival mind reading). Psychopaths are individuals who show a deficit in altruistic motivation but no deficit in perspective taking. Psychopaths, therefore, exhibit a natural dissociation of perspective taking from altruistic motivation. Because dissociations provide evidence of separations in capacities normally integrated in an individual, dissociations allow psychologists to accumulate evidence for or against the necessity or sufficiency of a cognitive process for a given behavior. Nichols uses a dissociation to argue against Blair's theory by showing that even if VIM exists, it is not sufficient for moral judgments. Nichols argues that individuals are exposed to distress cues and have aversive experience without making moral judgments. For example, there would be no professional boxing if that violent behavior triggered VIM, causing people watching to judge the actions to be morally wrong. Thus, moral judging is dissociated in some cases from the distress cues and aversive experiences which would trigger VIM on Blair's theory. Therefore, the actions of VIM, if it exists, are not sufficient for moral judgment.
4.) What is the prisoner's dilemma? Why was the performance of tit-for-tat such a surprise for game theorists? What explains tit-for-tat's success? What are the potential weaknesses of tit-for-tat?
Game theory has developed as area of study within applied mathematics, economics, biology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Game theory uses well-defined, idealized (highly simplified) situations, games, to study the efficacy of various strategies in interactions between rational egoists (individuals who seek to maximize their own self-interests in their intereactions). The prisoner's dilemma is one such game. In the prisoner's dilemma individuals must choose how to act in a situation in which there is a conflict between their self-interest and the common good. Specifically, the prisoners in the prisoner's dilemma must choose to either cooperate or betray their fellow prisoner. The game has rewards and penalties for each prisoner in each possible outcome. If both prisoner's cooperate, then they will each receive a small punishment, say a year in jail. If both prisoner's betray one another, then each will receive a greater punishment, say three years. If one cooperates while the other betrays, then the cooperator receives the greatest punishment in the game, five years in jail, while the betrayer gets rewarded with the best outcome of no jail time. So, in our example, the cooperator is jailed for five years while the betrayer is released. Since defection results in either the best outcome (zero jail time) or the second worst outcome (three years on jail) when playing the prisoner's dilemma a single time with naive players, theorists concluded that rational egoism dictated the best approach to such interactions. However, when playing the game repeatedly with the same players it turned out that tit-for-tat was the better strategy. Tit-for-tat starts the game by cooperating and then adopts the actions of the other player in their previous interaction when it encounters the agent again. Thus, tit-for-tat starts the game by cooperating. It continues to cooperate if cooperation is reciprocated by an agent. On the other hand, if an agent adopts defection, then tit-for-tat adopts defection the next time it encounters the defecting agent. Once tit-for-tat adopts defection it will continue to adopt defection towards and agent unless that agent cooperates for their next two interactions. Tit-for-tat succeeds in circumstances where the game has a duration sufficient to allow the rewards for cooperation to accumulate above the onetime punishments for initially cooperating with betrayers. Thus, tit-for-tat succeeds because it cooperates with cooperators and retaliates against betrayers. Acting towards another in the same manner they act towards you is called reciprocity. However, tit-for-tat has two weaknesses. First, it will lose in those games where it cannot engage with enough cooperators to offset its punishments from trying to cooperate with betrayers. For instance, it will lose in single instance games against betrayers or in games where it there are very few chances to cooperate. Second, once tit-for-tat begins to retaliate, another prisoner must cooperate twice (once so that tit-for-tat adopts cooperation again, and once so mutual cooperation will begin) in order to break the retaliatory cycle. Thus, if tit-for-tat gets off on the wrong foot, even with other tit-for-tat prisoners, it will never establish cooperation.
5.) How does Nowak alter the prisoner's dilemma in his tournaments? Give an example of a strategy discussed in lecture that does well in Nowak's tournament.
Game theory has developed as area of study within applied mathematics, economics, biology, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Game theory uses well-defined situations, games, to study how and why individuals choose different actions so as to get the best outcomes. The prisoner's dilemma is one such game. In the prisoner's dilemma individuals must choose how to act in a situation in which there is a conflict between their self-interest and the common good. Specifically, the prisoners in the prisoner's dilemma must choose to either cooperate or betray their fellow prisoner. The game has rewards and penalties for each prisoner in each possible outcome. If both prisoner's cooperate, then they will each receive a small punishment, say a year in jail. If both prisoner's betray one another, then each will receive a greater punishment, say three years. If one cooperates while they other betrays, then the cooperator receives the greatest punishment in the game, while the betrayer gets rewarded. So, in our example, the cooperated is jailed for five years while the betrayer is released. The first modification of the prisoner's dilemma was introduced by Axelrod who had programs play the game 200 times each against every other program, themselves, and a randomly selected program. Nowak's modification of the game was to have the programs make random mistakes and switch strategies in a probabilistic manner. Programs could also evolve by keeping successful tactics and dropping unsuccessful ones as well as by changing the probabilities dictating how often they would make mistakes or change tactics. In Nowak's tournaments nice strategies still prevailed. Pavlov is a strategy that does well in Nowak's tournament. Pavlov starts by cooperating. Whenever Pavlov does well using a strategy with a player, it sticks to that strategy with that player. Whenever it does not do well against a player, Pavlov switches strategies for the next encounter with that player. Pavlov, by sticking to a successful strategy, will tolerate some defections for an individual who has cooperated in the past.
6.) What are contracts for Hobbes? What contract must one try to enter into according to Hobbes, and why this particular contract?
Hobbes states that contracts consist in the voluntary mutual transfer of rights between individuals resulting in some form of good for each person. According to Hobbes in a world absent civil authority, a state of nature exists. In a state of nature each person is pitted against a field of equals, driven by self-interest, and active in a world devoid of property where every individual struggles to attain all that they can and keep it for as long as possible. It is a war of all against all, in which no one can reliably attain the higher ends of individuals (harmony, peace, art etc.). Thus, reason commands that one seek peace. That is, one must be willing to enter into a contract to establish a commonwealth, by being willing to lay down some of one�s rights in exchange for peace, and be contented with so much liberty against other people as they would allow other people against themselves.
7.) How does Hobbes argue that all persons are both intellectual and physical equals for all purposes in the state of nature?
As Hobbes portrays them, humans are largely self-interested individuals. They are fearful of death, uncertain of the future, and anxious for others to recognize their worth. The human capacity for affections and benevolence is limited. Finally, they exhibit an interest in the workings of their environments. According to Hobbes in a world absent civil authority, a state of nature exists. In a state of nature each person is pitted against a field of equals, driven by self-interest, and active in a world devoid of property where every individual struggles to attain all that they can and keep it for as long as possible. It is a war of all against all, in which no one can reliably attain the higher ends of individuals (harmony, peace, art etc.). Hobbes argues that such people in such conditions are sufficiently endowed in both mental and physical attributes to insure that no one is invulnerable nor can any one person ensure their domination over others indefinitely. A stronger person can be overcome by a group or a clever plotter. A smart person can be overcome by force or when their vigilance lapses. Thus, there is no person who can claim permanent advantage over any other person. Every person is vulnerable. Therefore, everyone is equal.
8.) How does Kant think you come to know that killing humans for personal gain is wrong morally?
Kant tells us that all morality is dictated by the categorical imperative. Specifically, one can derive all duties, perfect of imperfect, from the categorical imperative. One statement of the categorical imperative is: I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should be a universal law. Kant claims that we can derive perfect duties, such as not committing murder for personal gain, because their opposite maxims would result in contradictions if one supposes that the opposite maxims are universal laws of nature. Since the categorical imperative requires I will my maxim to be a universal law. I can't will my opposite maxim is a universal law. So, the categorical imperative always dictates that I follow my maxim. Hence, my maxim is universal and necessary--given the categorical imperative. In the case of not killing humans for personal gain, one's maxim would be "I ought not to kill humans for personal gain." The opposite maxim would be "I ought to kill humans for personal gain." One tests the opposite maxim to see if it contradicts itself. Specifcally, if I suppose that all people must always follow my opposite maxim and kill people whenever they stand to gain something, will it prevent people from acting in accordance with my opposite maxim? Suppose I murder Saad to get a personal gain, say, his nice shoes. In getting nice shoes by murder, I make myself a target for all other shoe craving people, like Andrew. These shoe cravers must, by universal law, kill me to get those shoes. Thus, if everyone always murders to gain things, it prevents one from actually gaining anything from murder. Since the opposite maxim cannot be a universal law, then my original maxim is universally and necessarily prescribed by the categorical imperative. Thus, if the categorical imperative is true, my original maxim, "I ought not to kill humans for personal gain," is universal and necessary.
9.) Why does Kant think that the categorical imperative is an a priori principle, whereas hypothetical imperatives are a posteriori principles?
According to Kant a priori principles are universal and necessary and they are known independent of experience. A posteriori principles are not universal and necessary since the world could be another way. Likewise, they are discovered through experience. For instance, the fact that dogs have tails is not universal and necessary in that one could breed dogs without tails, and it is discovered by studying dogs. Hypothetical imperatives are discovered through experience. Hypothetical imperatives relate particular ends to particular means, therefore they are not universal or necessary in their application since a person may not will the end of a given hypothetical. The categorical imperative holds that an action is required regardless of one�s ends. Therefore, it holds necessarily and universally. Likewise, Kant claims that the categorical imperative can only be known prior to or independent of experience.
