Discipline | Philosophy |
---|---|
Language | English |
Edited by | S. Matthew Liao |
Publication details | |
History | 2004–present |
Publisher | Brill Publishers (International) |
Frequency | Bimonthly |
Hybrid | |
0.379 (2015) | |
Standard abbreviations | |
ISO 4 | J. Moral Philos. |
Indexing | |
ISSN | 1740-4681 (print) 1745-5243 (web) |
Links | |
The Journal of Moral Philosophy is a peer-reviewed journal of moral, political, and legal philosophy with an international focus. It publishes articles in all areas of normative philosophy, including pure and applied ethics, as well as moral, legal, and political theory. Articles exploring non-Western traditions are also welcome.
The Journal seeks to promote lively discussions and debates for established academics and the wider community, by publishing articles that avoid unnecessary jargon without sacrificing academic rigour. It encourages contributions from newer members of the philosophical community. One issue per year is normally devoted to a particular theme and each issue will contain articles, discussion pieces, review essays, and book reviews. The founding editor was Thom Brooks (2003–2012).
According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2015 impact factor of 0.379, ranking it 42nd out of 51 journals in the category "Ethics".[1]
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/3Views:1 156 19046 4191 465
-
Can You Solve This Dilemma?
-
Jordan Peterson - Why be Virtuous?
-
Art and Ethics 1 - Introduction
Transcription
This is a thought experiment. You’re going to have to make some quick decisions, so listen carefully. Imagine you’re on a bridge that overlooks some train tracks. The tracks split in two and you notice there’s one person tied to one of the tracks, and five people tied to the other. And there’s a runaway trolley that’s coming right for the five people. On the bridge there’s a switch – you can hit it to change the course of the trolley from killing five people to killing one person. What do you do? Okay, now things get interesting – so interesting I think we need to add a little Vsauce. Vsauce, I’m Jake and you are going to have to make another choice. You’re back on the same bridge overlooking the same train tracks. There’s another guy on the bridge with you, who’s really, well, rather large. And this time there’s five people tied to the tracks. All of a sudden there’s a runaway trolley – coming right for them. If you pushed the large man off the bridge, you know he would land in front of the trolley and stop it. He would die, but it would save the five people on the tracks. What would you do? No, seriously, quickly write in the comments what you would do for each scenario. I'll give you a second. Oh, gotta go! This is “The Trolley Problem”, a classic thought experiment in ethics, posed by philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Thomson. In the first scenario, 90% of those asked say they would pull the switch – sacrificing one person to save five seems logical. But in the second scenario, 90% of those asked say they wouldn’t push the man. And this response is consistent for men, women and people with different levels of education. The Trolley Problem brings up this old debate in philosophy, where moral rationalism says our decisions should be based on pure reason. On the other hand, moral sense theory or sentimentalism says our emotions should guide our moral decisions. Rationalists would say that these two scenarios in the Trolley Problem are pretty similar. So why are our answers so universally different? In 2001, neuroscientist Joshua Greene posed some moral dilemmas to participants while their brains were being scanned by an fMRI machine. These dilemmas were labelled impersonal; like, should you travel by bus or train if you’re running late? Impersonal and moral; so, should you keep money you found in a lost wallet? And personal and moral; like, should you throw a sick person off a lifeboat to save a healthy person in the water? The researchers found different brain areas responded to impersonal and personal dilemmas. The prefrontal cortex was more active in the impersonal dilemmas. It’s our centre of reasoning, where we weigh up the costs and benefits of, say, keeping a lost wallet. In the personal dilemmas, the amygdala was more active. It’s our centre of emotions and we feel empathy when we think about killing someone, even if they’re sick and taking up space in a lifeboat. Greene suggested that moral decision making is a dual process – now known as dual process theory. We have emotion-based and rationally-based neural systems that compete in the reasoning process. We use both of them when we make a decision - one just wins out. So, what did you do in the Trolley Problem? Basically, if you did hit the switch or pushed the man your rational system won. Your prefrontal cortex added up the numbers – saving 5 lives over 1 life is good, right? And if you didn’t do either of those things, your emotional system won. It shouted a big “no!” to personally killing someone. But does your decision tell us if you’re morally just? Were you being a hero, or a villain? The purpose of thought experiments is to help test what you really believe about something. A hypothetical situation forces you to make a judgement, which is often different from what you think you believe. In his book, The Wisdom of Psychopaths, psychologist Kevin Dutton writes that psychopaths easily push the very large man off the bridge. The brain activity of psychopaths is the same in the first, impersonal dilemma and the second, personal dilemma. They purely use their rational neural system, the emotional system doesn’t respond. We tend to believe psychopaths are villains, but in this case, their cold and calculated actions save more lives. So, are they be heroes here? You will probably find a way to justify your response in the Trolley Problem so you think that you’re right, but someone else will think that you’re wrong. Really there's no way to say what is right and what is wrong in the Trolley Problem. That’s why it’s a moral dilemma. When you think back to that philosophical debate, neither rationalism nor sentimentalism wins. It all depends on your brain. And the Trolley Problem has it’s own problems. Why are there five people on the tracks? Why do you keep frequenting this bridge? Is anyone really big enough to stop a trolley? And who uses the world trolley anyway? Really, the Trolley Problem is just a game. Let’s go back to the first scenario. And image the person tied up is Mario, and the other five are Koopa Troopas. Do you still hit the switch? Is sacrificing worth the lives of five Koopa Troopas? Your actions in a game like Super Mario Bros. are what philosophy would call “consequentialist” – where you do everything possible to reach the next level. Even if it means killing some of adorable turtles. And then you, or the character you play, Mario, is considered a hero because of the consequences of their actions, like saving one person, the princess. But, are you really a hero? Or are you a villain? Follow me over to Vsauce3, where Jake asks, Is Mario Evil? And see you next Thursday And subscribe for more brainy videos.
See also
References
- ^ "Journals Ranked by Impact: Ethics". 2015 Journal Citation Reports. Web of Science (Social Sciences ed.). Thomson Reuters. 2016.