Emerging Technologies and Moral Boundaries: Psychological, Philosophical and Neuroscientific Perspectives<br />
Understanding Ethical cognition<br />Not ethical decision making<br />Not (directly) guiding ethical decision making<br />...
Why care?<br />Understand basis of own decisions<br />E.g. May reveal and shed light on disconnects between ‘in principle’...
Why military might care<br />Effectiveness of troops in war situation<br />Effectiveness of troops in peacekeeping<br />Mo...
Slight change of focus<br />Not about reaching consensus – about understanding multiple perspectives, what is common, what...
Stuart J. Youngner, MD<br />Chair, Department of Bioethics, CWRU<br />Susan E. Watson Professor of Bioethics<br />Professo...
Social vs physical/logical/scientific<br />Push – pull relationship<br />> sharp boundary<br />Research under way<br />New...
FFA and animate/inanimate<br />1997<br />2009<br />
A Nonvisual Look at the Functional Organization of Visual Cortex Animals vs tools /inanimate objects<br />
Faces - houses<br />
Kids (e.g. 3-7yrs) - houses<br />
Babies (0-2yrs) - houses<br />
‘cute’ mammal - houses<br />
Robot - houses<br />
Babies (0-2yrs) - houses<br />
Uncanny valley<br />
When does emotional response turn into moral sentiment?<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Cetmons Psychological And Neuroscientific Perspectives

403 views
355 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
403
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cetmons Psychological And Neuroscientific Perspectives

  1. 1. Emerging Technologies and Moral Boundaries: Psychological, Philosophical and Neuroscientific Perspectives<br />
  2. 2. Understanding Ethical cognition<br />Not ethical decision making<br />Not (directly) guiding ethical decision making<br />e.g. seven horizons<br />e.g. case studies<br />What guides/motivates/generates ethical sentiments & related emotions (e.g. anger, abhorrence, disgust, forgiveness, beneficence, sacrifice)<br />
  3. 3. Why care?<br />Understand basis of own decisions<br />E.g. May reveal and shed light on disconnects between ‘in principle’ ethical decisions, and ‘hot’ ethical responses to actual situations<br />Ethical sentiments are very powerful, perhaps most powerful social force<br />Shapes public opinion / response<br />Motivates life and death decisions<br />Dictates ease and ability to treat others in different ways (e.g. to kill, to treat inhumanely, to treat appropriately to a peacekeeping operation)<br />
  4. 4. Why military might care<br />Effectiveness of troops in war situation<br />Effectiveness of troops in peacekeeping<br />Moral of troops and effective use of technology<br />Reintegration of troops after tour<br />National / International public opinion<br />How to present or ‘package’ use of enhancements, control perception, win ‘hearts and minds’<br />
  5. 5. Slight change of focus<br />Not about reaching consensus – about understanding multiple perspectives, what is common, what is different<br />Not about dismissing ‘hysterical’ responses or putting aside ‘bad arguments’. <br />Cultural differences (by nation, by sub-culture)<br />Dependency on exposure (live it vs. hear about it) and on how communicated (propaganda)<br />Interesting and important in its own right<br />Encourage thinking ‘outside the box’ – stronger guide to how to build consensus (as opposed to ‘look, we reached a consensus, now that should dictate policy’).<br />Better understand what guides our own ethical intuitions (rather than appeal to religion, rationality, ‘authority of educated philosopher’)<br />Inform laws / how principles should be applied.<br />Not replacement for activities outlined, but complement to them.<br />
  6. 6. Stuart J. Youngner, MD<br />Chair, Department of Bioethics, CWRU<br />Susan E. Watson Professor of Bioethics<br />Professor of Psychiatry<br />Sara Waller<br />Associate Professor of Philosophy, Montana State<br />Philosophy of animal minds, neuroscience, ethics<br />
  7. 7. Social vs physical/logical/scientific<br />Push – pull relationship<br />> sharp boundary<br />Research under way<br />New project<br />
  8. 8. FFA and animate/inanimate<br />1997<br />2009<br />
  9. 9. A Nonvisual Look at the Functional Organization of Visual Cortex Animals vs tools /inanimate objects<br />
  10. 10. Faces - houses<br />
  11. 11. Kids (e.g. 3-7yrs) - houses<br />
  12. 12. Babies (0-2yrs) - houses<br />
  13. 13. ‘cute’ mammal - houses<br />
  14. 14. Robot - houses<br />
  15. 15. Babies (0-2yrs) - houses<br />
  16. 16. Uncanny valley<br />
  17. 17. When does emotional response turn into moral sentiment?<br />

×