Can psychological experiment play an informative role in the reflections and arguments of philosophy? Is it the rational or the emotional part of the brain that deals with moral judgments? Can scientific experiment on how the brain works be categorized within knowledge as philosophy? A recorded interview with Joshua Knobe of Yale University, affiliated with the departments of both cognitive science and philosophy, explores these questions and related ones. The conversation with Massimo Pigliucci and Julia Galef of the New York City Skeptic Society invites thought — and, as a podcast, can give this invitation pleasantly while you’re washing the dishes or out for a walk with your audio player.
Among the interesting points it raises is the difference between rational and emotional processes in making moral judgments. Knobe claims that people who are good at logical tasks, or who have been stimulated to think rationally before taking a psychological test, are more likely to make judgments using a utilitarian or consequentialist approach — weighing the consequences and trying to find the best outcome for the greatest number of people. They are observed to be using the cortex or the cognitive part of the brain. (Even reading questions in a difficult font apparently stimulates the rational part of the brain.) In contrast, those who tend not to be good at logical tasks, or who have been stimulated emotionally before the test, are more likely to make judgments using a deontological approach — following duties or principles. They can be observed to be using the more emotional systems of the brain. (In the podcast, forward to minute 16:25.)
