Moral Psychology vs. Philosophy: Round 2... FIGHT!!!

http://ift.tt/25al1K0

I confess that I've read almost all of those books and all three nytbr pieces and I'm just at a point where I don't care anymore. It's over. Remember the days when The Moral Landscape came out and we were up to our ankles in blood? Well, it's not over...

Quote:

As such we were surprised to read a long essay in the February 25 issue of The New York Review by Tamsin Shaw (a professor of European and Mediterranean studies and philosophy at NYU) which lumped five recent books in psychology (including one by each of us) with two reports on the CIA’s 2001–2006 program of torturing detainees. In defiance of the best philosophy, Shaw asserts that psychological and biological facts are “morally irrelevant” and “can tell us nothing” about moral propositions. She insinuates that psychologists, corrupted by their current theories, lack “a reliable moral compass” that would equip them to oppose torture. And she prosecutes her case by citation-free attribution, spurious dichotomies, and standards of guilt by association that make Joseph McCarthy look like Sherlock Holmes.

Them's fightn' words. Holy crap.

Those of us who have drunk from the sweet, sweet nectar of cognitive behavioral therapy and positive psychology and have seen the benefits at multiple level of society through their application have skin in the game, of this there is no doubt. Personally, for me, this is no longer about philosophers getting testy about psychology mowing their lawns. It's about politics. It's about where and when to apply science, and what the societal consequences will be.

Shaw:

Quote:

More recently, in an essay in The Atlantic, coauthored with Greg Lukianoff and entitled “The Coddling of the American Mind,” he recommended that students use therapies derived from cognitive behavioral therapy to foster personal resilience. Such resilience is needed, they argue, to combat the culture of victimhood that appears to them to lie at the basis of campus protests over racism and sexism.

Haidt actually recommended that it be taught to everyone in school . In my view, this is one of the most impressive and intelligent uses of intellectual power in the history of mankind. Haidt's recommendation and his gall in prescribing it impressed me to no end. He will forever be one of the greatest people ever just for doing this.

Quote:

In an interview, Haidt elaborated: With each passing year, racial diversity and gender diversity, I believe, while still important, should become lower priorities, and with each passing year political diversity becomes more and more important. His priorities appear to align closely with those of the Department of Defense. And they are supported by his view of moral psychology. But we should be wary of accepting his prescriptions as those of an independent moral expert, qualified to dispense sound ethical guidance. The discipline of psychology cannot equip its practitioners to do that.

We shouldn't teach people the greatest invention to create mental health and resilience because it might confuse people about philosophy? It's about how the brain works and what kind of thinking leads to distortions and ruts, it's science. Totally bonkers.

Quote:

No psychologist has yet developed a method that can be substituted for moral reflection and reasoning, for employing our own intuitions and principles, weighing them against one another and judging as best we can. This is necessary labor for all of us. We cannot delegate it to higher authorities or replace it with handbooks.

We can teach people how the brain works, how it evolved, and what strategies are likely to bring resilience and accuracy, because the brain has tendencies and biases and weaknesses, and this has nothing to do with moral philosophy... :rolleyes:

Quote:

I have not addressed specifically many of the ways by which Pinker and Haidt distort and misread the claims I make in my article

I think she's making mountains out of molehills while defending her main thrust against their main criticism. I'm a little ill from thinking about it, and I realize I'm heavily biased... any thoughts?

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1Rqi97F