tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post839453597614336116..comments2024-03-28T19:14:33.619-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: Aiming for Moral MediocrityEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13058773412163041992019-09-23T21:17:18.377-07:002019-09-23T21:17:18.377-07:00There's something oddly self-affirming about t...There's something oddly self-affirming about the claim that it's morally mediocre to aim to be morally mediocre. One can picture a morally mediocre individual reflecting on her values and moral conduct, and concluding, "I guess I'm not really striving to be morally excellent, but only mediocre. I guess that's not great, but I'm okay with that." It's not really so self-affirming because the two uses of the word "mediocre" come with different meanings: One is "tries to be as good as your peers" and the other is "not so good, not so bad in an absolute sense".Itai Bar-Natanhttps://itaibn.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-54089314745612411052019-09-15T08:38:48.872-07:002019-09-15T08:38:48.872-07:00Professor,
Your data is quite consistent with the...Professor, <br />Your data is quite consistent with the theme to my own psychology based models, or that we’re all self interested products of our circumstances. Thus if people are shown that others tend to do “bad” things in a given context, this naturally opens the door for them to do so as well. Why? It’s a matter of equity! “If others cheat then it’s only right for me to also cheat”. <br /><br />What the field of psychology needs, I think, is broad general theory which formalizes the self interested nature of the human and all conscious entities. The reason that the field has not yet taken this step, I think, is because any theorists who proposes such a thing (such as myself) may thus be charged with being “immoral”. Apparently there’s a social tool at work here (a “morality paradigm” if you will) which prevents us from objectively acknowledging our self interested nature.Philosopher Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11126076811765843302noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-19979919624637443972019-09-09T09:11:53.849-07:002019-09-09T09:11:53.849-07:00Thanks for the continuing comments, folks!
Anon: ...Thanks for the continuing comments, folks!<br /><br />Anon: I'm not sure why you say that. Perhaps I should clarify here (I discuss this in the full length paper), that the claim is about where people actually steer themselves, not how what they explicitly conceptualize themselves as aiming for.<br /><br />SelfAware: Yes, that's an interesting idea and perhaps part of the moral developmental and inspirational function of stories about Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, etc.<br /><br />George: There is evidence that most people conceive of themselves as above average in broad moral traits like honesty and kindness. I also agree that there's a big slippage between where one thinks one is aiming and where one hits. But the kind of aiming here isn't like shooting at a target in being difficult. For the most part, moral failures are failures of trying. (I'm not a big fan of exculpatory treatments of "weakness of will".) One analogy is to think of undergraduate students who say they are "aiming for B+". Some, of course, really do aim for B+. But many show the following pattern: They hope for a B+, but if they find they are headed toward C+ they do not recalibrate by investing more effort (even if they could do so). Aiming is better revealed by one's steering efforts -- how one steers up or down during the process -- than by what one says to oneself about one's aims.<br /><br />Howie: I agree that the literature on social conformity is relevant. Most of Asch's conformity experiments, as far as I'm aware, didn't concern moral conformity specifically, however. I find recent work by Bicchieri and Cialdini especially relevant. Bicchieri is especially careful about the distinction between moral and social norms -- though actually I would draw that distinction in a different place than she does.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16274774112862434865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-14989094758582729582019-09-08T15:55:09.458-07:002019-09-08T15:55:09.458-07:00Two related points: first you may be confounding m...Two related points: first you may be confounding morality with social norms and in any point the whole idea that we aim to moral mediocrity just a some great leaders inspire us show that morality is an individually mediated social process. There are tons of social psych experiments from Asch in the fifties on that speak to your conjecture.<br />You might explore working with social psychologists to investigate the matter further, not just interpret experiments morally, but have experiments that interpenetrate the twoHowiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12474061778220524205noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-12363166273476691122019-09-07T09:20:37.069-07:002019-09-07T09:20:37.069-07:00Eric - I love the connection you draw between the ...Eric - I love the connection you draw between the sociology of moral behavior and the philosophy of ethical standards. However, I think you skipped over an important psychological distinction --- the gap between what people aim for (their cognitive intention) and what they actually achieve (their behavior relative to norms). Is it not more theoretically consistent to say that people will generally aspire to, and aim for, being better than perceived norms? This is the Lake Wobegon phenomenon of Garrison Keeler - everyone thinks they are above average. However, the tricks of cognitive rationalizing and self-licensing serve to undermine those aspirations over time, resulting in average behaviors that are quite mediocre.<br /><br />Between the moral concepts, the sociology of moral norms, and the psychological processing that results in behaviors, there seems to be a very active and dynamic process. As you point out, on average we end up somewhat below average - an ironic contradiction, I suppose. But our self-image is still generally above average. Or is it?<br /><br />Then there is the issue of human frailty - and the collapse of personal morality in the face of significant temptation. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, like the fire and brimstone preacher who ends up being caught with is pants down (literally). Is such moral collapse on the part of some big enough to affect the averages. <br /><br />Perhaps a bit more attention to raising the aspiration of our moral norms and ritualizing their enforcement would be helpful. Religion anyone?George Gantzhttps://spiralinquiry.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-36887734788786892562019-09-07T06:52:23.987-07:002019-09-07T06:52:23.987-07:00This strikes me a very plausible. But I wonder if...This strikes me a very plausible. But I wonder if it has a lot to do with who someone is comparing themselves to. In the cases of the park or hotel, people were invited to compare themselves with other visitors, and so acted accordingly. <br /><br />But what if they'd been invited to compare themselves with well known paragons that stood out from their peers? It seems like a lot of the reason we grow up hearing stories about those types of people are to encourage us to compare with them rather than immediate peers. SelfAwarePatternshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11856665627652130336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-20671357470320279932019-09-07T03:58:16.478-07:002019-09-07T03:58:16.478-07:00The empirical evidence does not appear to be about...The empirical evidence does not appear to be about what people aimed at or intended.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com