The psychology behind the human tendency to make the leap from “is” to “ought.”

[the seeing servant]

https://thesystemsscientist.com/2016/08/19/freaks-geeks-norms-mores-and-the-moral-compass/

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have noticed an odd tendency among people to value what is "normal". This is more psychology than philosophy.

The takeaway point seems to be:

When people have access to more information about how the world works, it might be easier for them to imagine the world being different. In particular, if people are given explanations they may not have considered initially, they may be less likely to assume “what is” equals “what ought to be.”

Consistent with this possibility, we found that by subtly manipulating people’s explanations, we could change their tendency to make is-to-ought inferences. When we put adults in what we call a more “extrinsic” (and less inherent) mindset, they were less likely to think that common behaviors are necessarily what people should do. For instance, even children were less likely to view the status quo (brides wear white) as good and right when they were provided with an external explanation for it (a popular queen long ago wore white at her wedding, and then everyone started copying her).

What is it that you'd like to discuss?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lesliedellow]

https://thesystemsscientist.com/2016/08/19/freaks-geeks-norms-mores-and-the-moral-compass/

I am not sure there is such a tendency. Some atheists would like to make that leap, but for ideological reasons; not because humans have a built in tendency to do so.

"It seems to me there is an unbridgable gulf between an 'is and an 'ought'."

That is the atheist Stephen Weinberg speaking.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am not sure there is such a tendency. Some atheists would like to make that leap, but for ideological reasons; not because humans have a built in tendency to do so.

??? I fail to see what this has to do with atheism. Are the researchers even atheists? The article is about psychological research that was done, and isn't about the philosophy.

"It seems to me there is an unbridgable gulf between an 'is and an 'ought'."

That is the atheist Stephen Weinberg speaking.

Actually, that would be David Hume and an amazingly large percentage of intellectuals since him. It's an influential idea that is certainly not limited to Stephen Weinberg. You can find it taught at just about any university.

I personally disagree with that view. And the view has nothing to do with the research mentioned in the article.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Humans are creatures of habit and tradition, and are loss-averse; many people, particularly those who are used to (and comfortable with) the status quo, are resistant to, or suspicious of, change, which leads them to favour actions that keep things the way they are over those that would change the way things are. So the way many things are, or have been, is - broadly - the way those things ought to be. Better the devil you know...

 

[lesliedellow]

??? I fail to see what this has to do with atheism. Are the researchers even atheists? The article is about psychological research that was done, and isn't about the philosophy.

Peter Atkins is an example of the kind of atheist I have in mind. He wants to make science into the explanation for just about everything, firstly because scientism is his own personal religion, and secondly because he wants to squeeze out other religions.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Peter Atkins is an example of the kind of atheist I have in mind. He wants to make science into the explanation for just about everything, firstly because scientism is his own personal religion, and secondly because he wants to squeeze out other religions.

But this is psychological research, and I fail to see how they would conduct it without a scientific approach, and I'm not scientistic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[zippy2006]

https://thesystemsscientist.com/2016/08/19/freaks-geeks-norms-mores-and-the-moral-compass/

Psychology is a slippery thing, but here's some of the logic:

1. Existence/survival is good
2. Humans need food to survive
3. Therefore humans should eat food

Understanding leads to action, is to ought.