Contingency inattention: against causal debunking in ethics

Abstract

It is a philosophical truism that we must think of others as moral agents, not merely as causal or statistical objects. But why? I argue that this follows from the best resolution of an antinomy between our experience of morality as necessarily binding on the will and our knowledge that all moral beliefs originate in contingent histories. We can address this antinomy only by understanding moral deliberation via interpersonal relationships, which simultaneously vindicate and constrains morality’s bind on the will. This means that moral agency is fundamentally social. I model an attitude toward our causal nature on sociologist Erving Goffman’s concept of ‘civil inattention’; our social practice of agency requires that we give minimal attention to the contingent origins of moral judgments in ourselves and others. Understood this way, seeing ourselves as moral agents requires avoiding appeal to causal aetiology to settle substantive moral disagreement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    I owe this framing of my project to Rima Basu, whose paper at the 2018 Pacific APA in San Diego helped me see a thread running among various disordered philosophical homespuns littering my mind. Along with contributing to my Kantian anxieties, it was Rima who fingered Sherlock Holmes as the prime suspect. See Basu (2019).

  2. 2.

    I’ve previously discussed psychological debunking like Greene’s in other places, like Rini (2016, 2017a) and Rini and Bruni (2017). You can usefully think of this paper as an attempt to make good on some of the dialectical rumors I’ve previously let slip.

  3. 3.

    There is a substantial philosophical literature on whether knowing the causal origins of a belief should count to undermine it. See e.g. White (2010) and Srinivasan (2019). I discuss this for ethics in particular in Rini (2013, 2016).

  4. 4.

    The distinction appears in several places. I find Kahane (2011) most helpful. For more on how I think the distinction works, see the final sections of Rini (2016).

  5. 5.

    For interpretation of this rather difficult part of Kant, see e.g. Allison (1990) and Vaida (2009).

  6. 6.

    Kant (1785/2002, Ak 4:455–456). My reading of Kant on these points is heavily indebted to Korsgaard (1996a).

  7. 7.

    Attempts to exempt certain moral judgments—such as utilitarian axioms—are tendentious. See de Lazari-Radek and Singer (2012) and objections by Kahane (2014) and Rini (2016).

  8. 8.

    Here I am merely echoing a thought you can find in a number of philosophers of broadly Kantian persuasion, especially Nagel (1986) and Korsgaard (1996b).

  9. 9.

    Arguments of this sort are sometimes framed as objections to the metaphysics of moral realism. But they are probably better understood as epistemological objections, which kick up untenable skeptical worries for value realists. See Street (2006) and McGrath (2008).

  10. 10.

    Setiya continues: “We must hold that, at the most basic level, nonmoral evidence supports particular moral beliefs—ones that tend to be correct—or that such beliefs are justified without evidence. Of course, there is no guarantee that we are in the right. Perhaps our interlocutors’ beliefs are justified, while ours are not. We have no way to address that question that is independent of whether their beliefs are true. But so it goes. There are no guarantees in the epistemology of any beliefs. We do the best we can” (Setiya 2010, p. 217) (‘Does Moral Theory Corrupt Youth?’).

  11. 11.

    Olson (2014). For detail on my worries about Olson’s positive view, see my review of the book, Rini (2017b).

  12. 12.

    I am obviously indebted in this section to Darwall (2006). Less obviously, though just as certainly, I owe much to de Beauvoir (1948) (alas, exegetical unpacking of the latter debt will have to wait for another day).

  13. 13.

    As Springer (2013, p. 30) puts a similar point: “Our understanding of the social is informed neither by the causal third-person stance of scientific observation nor by the reflective first-person stance of free and reasoned deliberation. In attending to our sociality, we experience such Kantian dichotomies as particularly hollow”.

  14. 14.

    Two contemporary philosophers who’ve immensely enrichened this Humean point are Arpaly (2003) and Calhoun (1989, 2004).

  15. 15.

    Philosophers have made surprisingly little use of Goffman. A notable exception is David Velleman, though he draws more on another of Goffman’s books, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959). In part due to the shared influence from Goffman, some of what I say here overlaps with Velleman’s How We Get Along (2009).

  16. 16.

    For a related set of ideas, see Calhoun (2000).

  17. 17.

    Jonathan Haidt, citing empirical evidence, says that “If you are able to honestly examine the moral arguments in favour of slavery and genocide (along with the much stronger arguments against them), then you are likely to be either a psychopath or a philosopher” (Haidt and Bjorklund 2008, p. 196).

  18. 18.

    Truth-indifferent causal etiology is the standard form of global debunking in metaethics; see Mackie (1973), Harman (1977) and Joyce (2006). This is the same argument form used selectively in ethics by Greene (2008).

References

  1. Allison, H. (1990). Kant’s theory of freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Arpaly, N. (2003). Unprincipled virtue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Asheri-Shahaf, S. (2016). Patriotic conscientious objection to military service. Res Publica,22(2), 155–172.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baron-Cohen, S., et al. (2007). Mathematical talent is linked to autism. Human Nature,18, 125–131.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bartels, D. M., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). The mismeasurement of morals: Antisocial personality train predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition,121(1), 154–161.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Basu, R. (2019). What we epistemically owe to each other. Philosophical Studies,176, 915–931.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Calhoun, C. (1989). Responsibility and reproach. Ethics,99(2), 389–406.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Calhoun, C. (2000). The virtue of civility. Philosophy & Public Affairs,29(3), 251–275.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Calhoun, C. (2004). An apology for moral shame. Journal of Political Philosophy,12(2), 127–146.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Darwall, S. (2006). The second-person standpoint. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man (Vol. 1). Darwin online. Retrieved August 29, 2019 from http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F937.1&viewtype=text.

  12. de Beauvoir, S. (1948). The ethics of ambiguity (B. Frechtman, Trans.). New York: Citadel Press.

  13. de Lazari-Radek, K., & Singer, P. (2012). The objectivity of ethics and the unity of practical reason. Ethics,123(1), 9–31.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dickens, C. (1961). American notes. Greenwich: Fawcett Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dunbar, R. (1997). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dworkin, R. (1996). Objectivity and truth: You’d better believe it. Philosophy & Public Affairs,25(2), 87–139.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Frankfurt, H. (1982). The importance of what we care about. Synthese,53(2), 257–272.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Freud, S. (1932/1989). New introductory lectures in psycho-analysis (J. Strachey, Ed.). New York: Norton.

  19. Fritz, K. G., & Miller, D. (2018). Hypocrisy and the standing to blame. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly,99(1), 118–139.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Greene, J. (2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. 3). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Greene, J. (2014). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics,124(4), 695–726.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Haidt, J., & Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists answer six questions about morality. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. 2). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Harman, G. (1977). The nature of morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hume, D. (1738). A treatise of human nature. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hume, D. (1748). An enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Isserow, J., & Klein, C. (2017). Hypocrisy and moral authority. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy,12(2), 191–222.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Joyce, R. (2001). Moral fictionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kahane, G. (2011). Evolutionary debunking arguments. Nous,45(1), 103–125.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kahane, G. (2014). Evolution and impartiality. Ethics,124(2), 327–341.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kant, I. (1781/2017). Critique of pure reason (J. Bennett, Trans.). Early modern texts. Retrieved August 29, 2019 from https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1781part2_3.pdf.

  34. Kant, I. (1785/2002). Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals (A. Wood, Trans.). New Haven: Yale University Press.

  35. Korsgaard, C. (1996a). Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Korsgaard, C. (1996b). The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lamont, M. (2009). How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mackie, J. L. (1973). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  39. McGrath, S. (2008). Moral disagreement and moral experetise. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Oxford studies in metaethics (Vol. 4, pp. 87–108). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nagel, T. (1986). The view from nowhere. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Nagel, T. (1997). The last word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and cosmos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nehushtan, Y., & Danaher, J. (2018). The foundations of conscientious objection: Against freedom and autonomy. Jurisprudence,9(3), 541–565.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nietzsche, F. (1886/2009). Beyond good and evil (H. Zimmern, Trans., Ed.). Project Gutenberg edition. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm.

  45. Nietzsche, F. (1887/1989). The genealogy of morals. (W. Kaufmann, Ed.). New York: Random House.

  46. Olson, J. (2014). Moral error theory: History, critique, defence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Philipp, J. (2017). Jordan Peterson exposes the postmodernist agenda. The Epoch Times June 21, 2017. Retrieved March 19, 2019 from https://www.theepochtimes.com/jordan-peterson-explains-how-communism-came-under-the-guise-of-identity-politics_2259668.html.

  48. Rini, R. (2013). Making psychology normatively significant. The Journal of Ethics,17(3), 257–274.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rini, R. (2016). Debunking debunking: A regress challenge for psychological threats to moral judgment. Philosophical Studies,173(3), 675–697.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Rini, R. (2017a). Why moral psychology is disturbing. Philosophical Studies,174, 1439–1458.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rini, R. (2017b). Review of Jonas Olson, moral error theory. Philosophical Quarterly,67, 650–653.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rini, R. (2018). Abortion, ultrasound, and moral persuasion. Philosophers’ Imprint,18(6), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rini, R., & Bruni, T. (2017). Archimedes in the lab: Can science identify good moral reasoning? In J.-F. Bonnefon & B. Trémolière (Eds.), Moral inferences. London: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Samuel, A. (1960). Some moral and technical consequences of automation—A refutation. Science,132(3429), 741–742.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Setiya, K. (2010). Does moral theory corrupt youth? Philosophical Topics,38(1), 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Springer, E. (2013). Communicating moral concern: An ethics of critical responsiveness. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Srinivasan, A. (2019). Genealogy, epistemology, and worldmaking. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,119(2), 127–156.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Strawson, P. F. (1962). Freedom and resentment. Proceedings of the British Academy,48, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Street, S. (2006). A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies,127(1), 109–166.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Tessman, L. (2015). Moral failure: On the impossible demands of morality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Vaida, I. C. (2009). A new Kantian solution to the third antinomy of pure reason and the free will problem. Southern Journal of Philosophy,47(4), 403–431.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Velleman, D. (2009). How we get along. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  63. White, R. (2010). You just believe that because…. Philosophical Perspectives,24(1), 573–615.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thanks to audiences who sat through this at the 2018 Bled Philosophical Conference in Slovenia, the ‘Ways of Knowing in Ethics’ conference at Simon Fraser University, and the 2019 Pacific APA. Thanks especially to my amazing commenters at the last: Rima Basu and Jeff Sebo. And thanks as well to Shamik Dasgupta, whose encouragement kept me from committing this to the flames.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Regina Rini.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rini, R. Contingency inattention: against causal debunking in ethics. Philos Stud 177, 369–389 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01397-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Moral agency
  • Debunking
  • Contingency
  • Metaethics
  • Moral psychology