Visual Imagery Influences Deontological Moral Judgement

Then Greene explains the moral brian, and describes it as “ dual mode camera with both automatic settings and manual mode ” (15). this concepts of moral brains is similar to what Daniel Karmanham author of Thinking Fast and Slow calls system one and sysytems two. system one: aperate automaticlly and quickly with little to no effort and no sences of vountry control(Kahneman20).While system two:allocates attentionto the effortful mental activiteis that demand it , including complex computations(20). There who diffrent settings of the brain that help humans make everyday choices. System one or automatic mode is the setting of the brain that usually uses the gut feeling that causes humans to react automatically. while system two or manual mode is usually for practical reasoning in situations usually causes humans to thinking more when solving a problem.The final idea Greene discusses is Common Currency this is when humans begin to search for a metamorality:a global moral philosophy that can adjudicates among competing tribal moralites (15

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

Judgment is a fundamental function of the human brain. On a daily basis one judges their peers for their actions, whether it be good or bad. In the novel, Monster by Walter Dean Myers, a young boy named Steve Harmon is put on trial for felony murder; he shares his experiences of what is going on throughout the case and how he is being perceived by his peers. The jury has to make a decision, marking Harmon guilty or not guilty. The jury must make a judgment about him, about who he is. Evidently, it is revealed that judgment is determined by one’s traits, actions, and appearance.

The leading premise claimed by Singer is a simple thought that provides clear direction or suggestion of one’s moral implication: "if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out" (Taylor, 2009). We can assume that no matter one's ethical views, wading into the water is nothing in comparison to the death of a child. The impact of Singer's argument relies on a carefully worded, yet agreeable set of claims that has a range of reasonable objections. Singer emphasizes the use of common sense in making judgments about moral and ethical choices and does this by daring the reader to question their own views of morality.

This was a interesting philosophy experiment. The preliminary questions were about a person’s moral reasoning.

As we have all come to learn empathy is a broad and even controversial topic; having empathy may not always mean making good decisions. That is what each of the three pieces: “The Dark Side of Empathy” by Paul Bloom, “What Makes Us Moral” by Jeffrey Klugger, and “Why Mental Pictures Can Sway Your Moral Judgement” by Shankar Vedantam examine (2015, 2007, 2012). All three sources are effective in conveying their message about morals and empathy, however varying rhetoric methods are employed by each piece.

Through comparing brain scans, scientists believe a portion of the brain involved with moral decision-making and ethical behavior is less active when processing information. The orbital lobe is responsible for this crucial part of the brain, and the less it functions, the greater the risk for violent

Patricia S. Churchland 's book entitled Braintrust: What Neuroscience tells Us About Morality, takes us on a walk through the scientific advances in evolutionary biology, genetics and neuroscience that have lead us to the question of wether morality can be explained or justified by science. The goal being an attempt at creating a framework for which to understand human morality. Churchland, a professor at the University of California San Diego in her book asks what is morality? Is it divinely inspired, or instinct, or an abstract set of rules? She argues, that a real understanding of morality begins with an understanding of the brain.

In The Moral Instinct, Steven Pinker cites Haidt’s “primary colors” of the moral sense (329). Pinker believes that all moral decisions can be categorized with these primary colors and, though everyone can see these colors, they are prioritized differently by different people. Haidt identifies five primaries—harm, fairness, community, authority, and purity—all of which make up the moral spectrum. These recurring moral themes can be found everywhere from cultural norms to the decisions and beliefs of individuals. Though the themes can be identified in works regarding ethics and morality, they—if applied correctly—can also give insight into the way the author prioritizes the moral colors.

This paper will compare the usefulness of character-based and consequence-based approaches in making moral decisions. In a character-based approach, the consideration of the moral agent is central in making decisions, and actions are made in order to reflect and strengthen good character. In a consequence-based approach, the consideration of the outcome is central in making moral decisions, and actions are judged based on the outcome. Usefulness will be defined in terms of three aspects: consistency, convenience and assurance, with assurance being defined as the confidence that the decision made is correct. Through the comparison of the two approaches, it becomes clear that a character-based approach is more useful in making a decision.

When an individual is proposed with a moral dilemma they will often seek the advice of others rather than acting solely upon their immediate cultural, familial, and cognitive predispositions; suggesting that judgments are also made about the moral judgments of others (Rest, Cooper, Coder, Masanz & Anderson, 1974).

An intuitive moral judgment is immediate judgment that requires no thinking or reflection. In other words, an intuitive moral judgment is simply a judgment we make with a minimum of thinking about it. An intuitive moral judgment is an automatic response to our understanding of a situation or an action. Many moral psychologists believe that moral intuitions are mainly based on our feelings rather than reasoning.

So while the participants are reliving their nostalgic feelings, they answer questions regarding a short scenario and their judgement of the person and event in the scenario. The participants are questioned if the person in the scenario is morally right or wrong, if they should be punished, if a one year jail term is too harsh or mild, and if the participant is able to forgive the person in the scenario for their moral misdemeanors. The questionnaire included about 10 different judgement scenarios.

Real world objects once perceived by the mind go through each part of the mind. The decision producer is where the ‘more than’ factor takes place. The evaluator leads to the decision producer which leads to a plan of action and a predictable result. The ‘more than’ is factual and empirical data in the thinking process towards making moral decisions. “Now suppose a decision is the upshot these modules functioning. Suppose it is one of your decisions, and these parts function to produce it in the way that they normally do. If we call these modules, ‘decision’ modules, and if these modules are engaged in producing the output, then we can say that you chose the output” (Think, 92). We do certain acts in the real world and we begin in the real world and end in the real world. The decision producer produces the decision based on what ever happened in the evaluator. The evaluator can develop two different scenarios one can be moral while the other is immoral and the decision producer decides to choose the more ethical option.

From the reading, I understand that people think and act differently when faced with ethical issues. For one to make a rational decision, an extensive process of judgment is required (Bandura, Caprara, & Zsolnai, 2000). For an individual to be responsible, he or she should put into consideration the magnitude of the consequences of the actions, social