Integrating Philosophy and Psychology in Moral Discourse

Devotional

Day 1: The Limits of Evolutionary Psychology

Evolutionary psychology provides valuable insights into the origins of our moral and political differences, suggesting that these differences are deeply rooted in our biological makeup. However, without a philosophical foundation, these insights may fall short in fostering genuine understanding and respect for opposing views. The risk is that moral discourse becomes a struggle for power rather than a dialogue aimed at mutual understanding. To truly engage with others, we must look beyond biological determinism and seek a deeper philosophical grounding that encourages dialogue and understanding. [02:35]

Romans 2:14-15 (ESV): "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them."

Reflection: Consider a recent disagreement you had with someone. How can you move beyond seeing it as a mere clash of instincts and instead engage in a dialogue that seeks mutual understanding?

Day 2: The Role of Innate Temperaments

Our political and moral preferences are often influenced by our innate temperaments, which shape how we perceive and react to the world around us. While these temperaments can guide our initial responses, they do not absolve us from the responsibility to engage in rational discourse. Understanding these influences can help us navigate differences, but it requires a commitment to philosophical inquiry and a willingness to engage with others thoughtfully. By recognizing the role of our temperaments, we can better understand ourselves and others, fostering a more compassionate and reasoned dialogue. [03:53]

Proverbs 16:32 (ESV): "Whoever is slow to anger is better than the mighty, and he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city."

Reflection: Think about a time when your temperament influenced your reaction to a situation. How can you practice self-control and engage in rational discourse the next time you face a similar situation?

Day 3: The Danger of Determinism

A deterministic view of ideas, where they are seen as mere products of biological instincts, undermines the possibility of rational deliberation. This perspective risks reducing moral discourse to politics, where power, rather than reason, prevails. To avoid this, it is essential to recognize the role of rational reflection in shaping our ideas and beliefs. By valuing reason over instinct, we can engage in meaningful moral discourse that transcends mere political power struggles and seeks genuine understanding and cooperation. [06:22]

Ecclesiastes 7:25 (ESV): "I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness."

Reflection: Reflect on a belief you hold strongly. How can you ensure that this belief is shaped by reason and reflection rather than mere instinct or external influence?

Day 4: The Classical Tradition of Participation

The classical Platonic tradition emphasizes participation in universal reason, providing a framework for ethical discourse. This tradition suggests that all humans can access universal moral knowledge, fostering civic discourse and cooperation. By engaging with this tradition, we can move beyond the limitations of deterministic views and embrace a more inclusive and reasoned approach to moral discourse. This participation in universal reason allows us to engage with others in a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding, promoting a more harmonious and just society. [12:32]

1 Corinthians 2:12-13 (ESV): "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual."

Reflection: How can you actively participate in universal reason in your daily interactions? What steps can you take to foster a spirit of cooperation and understanding in your community?

Day 5: Integrating Philosophy and Psychology

To advance projects in moral psychology, it is essential to integrate philosophical insights that emphasize rational deliberation and universal moral principles. This integration ensures that efforts to recover moral knowledge are grounded in a tradition that values ethical discourse. By combining the strengths of both disciplines, we can create a more comprehensive understanding of moral knowledge that respects both the insights of psychology and the depth of philosophical inquiry. This holistic approach can guide us in fostering a more reasoned and compassionate moral discourse. [16:00]

Colossians 2:8 (ESV): "See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

Reflection: In what ways can you integrate philosophical and psychological insights into your understanding of moral issues? How can this integration help you engage more effectively in ethical discourse?

Sermon Summary

In today's discussion, we explored the work of Jonathan Haidt, particularly his contributions to moral psychology and the challenges of recovering moral knowledge through social sciences. Haidt's efforts to encourage civil debate and cooperative engagement on divisive issues are commendable, and his moral foundations theory offers an intriguing account of moral reasoning across cultures. However, I argue that without a robust philosophical grounding, Haidt's project may inadvertently contribute to the disappearance of moral knowledge rather than its recovery.

Haidt's evolutionary and cross-cultural psychology provides insights into why we have different moral and political views, but it lacks the resources to help us tolerate or adjudicate these differences. While he suggests that our political preferences are influenced by innate temperaments, this does not necessarily lead to respecting or understanding opposing views. The absence of a philosophical foundation means that Haidt's work might unintentionally support a deterministic view of ideas, where rational deliberation is overshadowed by non-rational forces, leading to a reliance on power rather than dialogue to resolve differences.

This deterministic view risks reducing moral discourse to mere politics, where ideas are shaped by biological instincts rather than rational reflection. Haidt's account, while aiming to promote civil discourse, may not advance this goal if it does not address the philosophical underpinnings of moral knowledge. The classical Platonic tradition, which emphasizes participation in universal reason, offers a potential framework for fostering civic discourse and cooperative deliberation. This tradition, spanning from Plato to modern thinkers like Pascal, suggests that all humans can participate in universal moral knowledge, providing a basis for ethical discourse.

Dallas Willard's work, although employing a phenomenological method, aligns with this tradition by suggesting that moral knowledge is universally accessible through rational reflection. Willard's analysis of moral acts and valuations supports the idea that we can discern good and evil through shared moral intuitions. To advance Haidt's project and similar endeavors in moral psychology, it is crucial to integrate these philosophical insights, ensuring that efforts to recover moral knowledge are grounded in a tradition that values rational deliberation and universal moral principles.

Key Takeaways

1. The Limits of Evolutionary Psychology: While evolutionary psychology offers insights into our moral and political differences, it lacks the philosophical grounding needed to foster true understanding and respect for opposing views. Without this foundation, moral discourse risks becoming a battleground of power rather than dialogue. [02:35]
2. The Role of Innate Temperaments: Our political and moral preferences are influenced by innate temperaments, but this does not absolve us from the responsibility to engage in rational discourse. Understanding these influences can help us navigate differences, but it requires a commitment to philosophical inquiry. [03:53]
3. The Danger of Determinism: A deterministic view of ideas, where they are seen as products of biological instincts, undermines the possibility of rational deliberation. This perspective risks reducing moral discourse to politics, where power, rather than reason, prevails. [06:22]
4. The Classical Tradition of Participation: The classical Platonic tradition emphasizes participation in universal reason, providing a framework for ethical discourse. This tradition suggests that all humans can access universal moral knowledge, fostering civic discourse and cooperation. [12:32]
5. Integrating Philosophy and Psychology: To advance projects in moral psychology, it is essential to integrate philosophical insights that emphasize rational deliberation and universal moral principles. This integration ensures that efforts to recover moral knowledge are grounded in a tradition that values ethical discourse. [16:00]
** [16:00]

Youtube Chapters

[00:00] - Welcome
[00:10] - Introduction to Jonathan Haidt's Work
[00:26] - Moral Knowledge and Social Sciences
[00:46] - Encouraging Civil Debate
[01:03] - Moral Foundations Theory
[01:34] - Evolutionary Psychology's Limitations
[02:20] - The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge
[03:20] - Political Preferences and Innate Temperaments
[04:24] - The Challenge of Tolerating Differences
[05:14] - Determinism and Moral Discourse
[06:22] - The Role of Power in Ideas
[07:13] - Universally Recognized Goods
[08:22] - Willard's Critique of Constructed Accounts
[09:57] - The Insufficiency of Social Sciences
[12:32] - The Classical Tradition of Participation
[14:28] - Willard's Universal Moral Knowledge
[16:00] - Integrating Philosophy and Psychology

Bible Study Guide

Observation Questions

What are some of the key insights Jonathan Haidt provides about moral and political differences according to the sermon? [01:18]
How does the sermon describe the limitations of evolutionary psychology in fostering understanding and respect for opposing views? [02:35]
What does the sermon suggest about the role of innate temperaments in shaping our political and moral preferences? [03:53]
How does the sermon propose integrating philosophical insights with moral psychology to recover moral knowledge? [16:00]

Interpretation Questions

How does Romans 2:14-15 relate to the idea of universal moral knowledge discussed in the sermon? What does this suggest about the nature of moral reasoning across cultures?
In what ways does Proverbs 3:5-6 challenge the deterministic view of ideas as described in the sermon? How might this passage encourage rational deliberation over biological determinism?
How does 1 Corinthians 1:10 align with the sermon's call for civil discourse and cooperative engagement? What practical steps can be taken to achieve unity in moral and political discussions?
What philosophical traditions does the sermon suggest could provide a framework for ethical discourse, and how might these traditions help in understanding and resolving moral differences? [12:32]

Application Questions

Reflect on a recent disagreement you had with someone of a different political or moral viewpoint. How might understanding the role of innate temperaments help you approach such conversations differently in the future? [03:53]
Consider a situation where you felt your ideas were shaped by non-rational forces. How can you apply the principles from Proverbs 3:5-6 to ensure your decisions are guided by rational reflection and faith?
Think of a time when a discussion turned into a power struggle rather than a dialogue. What steps can you take to foster a more civil and cooperative environment in future conversations? [06:22]
How can you incorporate the classical tradition of participation in universal reason into your daily interactions to promote understanding and cooperation? [12:32]
Identify a moral or ethical issue you feel strongly about. How can you engage in rational deliberation and dialogue with others who hold opposing views, while maintaining respect and understanding? [16:00]
Reflect on the role of philosophical grounding in your own moral reasoning. How can you integrate philosophical insights into your decision-making process to enhance your understanding of moral knowledge? [16:00]
How can the insights from the sermon help you navigate the challenges of moral discourse in today's polarized society? What specific actions can you take to contribute to a more respectful and understanding community? [06:22]

Sermon Clips

Without additional philosophical grounding, Hyatts project may not only not be helpful but may unintentionally contribute to the disappearance of moral knowledge. He's trying to go this way he ends up taking us that. I'm going to come at this conclusion a little differently from from what Aaron did in his paper. [00:02:02]

Our political meanings are in part a product of our personality and he's certainly right when he argues that our personality is in part the product of our biology. So psychologists and neuroscientists can argue about the details of his particular descriptive scheme but I think most of them would affirm these two basic premises. [00:02:50]

This account might help us understand this part why we have different views on contested issues but it provides few resources to help us tolerate others views and certainly fewer resources to adjudicate between these. Perhaps Willard would have posed the following question to height from whence comes your injunction to stability to regard or to respect to these differences. [00:04:12]

On this view our ideas are the product of unconscious forces as much as they are the product of rational reflection and conscious choice and when ideas are determined by the irrational or non rational forces and this admittedly is quitting a little more strongly than but hi guys this leaves open it seems to me only the exercise of power as the method of adjudicating these differences. [00:04:57]

On these kinds of views we have no basis for shared rational deliberation all we have again are non rational forces that may happen to coincide or may happen to conflate this is a case culture the realm of ideas and ideals is necessarily subsumed into politics and politics risks becoming a war you go on Twitter I think you'll see that claim verified. [00:06:33]

Willard would point out as he does in Chapter one disappearance that distracted accounts of what people take to be goods are not sufficient to qualify as moral knowledge in this respect I think is project in the righteous moment elsewhere is situated within what Willard called the constructed and largely empiricists itself which in Willard's estimation left the human being opaque or elusive at best so far as moral knowledge is concerned. [00:07:59]

The human being is increasingly taken to be the kind of thing that could not be a subject of moral knowledge because even if it exists the soul and he puts it in scare quotes the soul is governed by unconscious forces beyond or other than self-awareness or rational self direction the inner dynamic of a non-physical soul or person weaving is what lighted together by choosing the follow rationally grounded moral insects disappeared for a possible cognitive view. [00:08:42]

Let's suppose that there are universal Goods truth justice beauty for example and it has an aside I do take it that there are any such good answer toasters your wood Heights hide psychological account of tribalist tendencies among liberals and conservatives doesn't necessarily move us any closer to the acknowledgement of universal goods than all of us on both sides of the political spectrum should be trying to advance. [00:10:12]

I would direct heights attention toward the classical platonic tradition this is laconic broadly understood I'm not talking necessarily about Plato's doctrine of the forms or his jiggler epistemology of recollection like that referring rather to the general notion then it runs through central strands of Western philosophy which we could if you roughly described as the body of participation this is the notion that all normally function functioning human beings participate by a kind of intuition in the logos in in a universal reason or a universal ordering principle. [00:12:09]

This participation allows us both to know the world which is rationally ordered and intelligible and to reason and deliberate together with one another in the pursuit of truth goodness the subversion of this and the specific details are not important purposes these for my purposes here in this commentary some version of this it seems to me is the only basis for an ethics of civic discourse and cooperative deliberation between and among human beings affirming our participation the universality of Reason is the only way to avoid killing one another over deeply divisive political or moral questions. [00:12:40]

Willard's work although he's employment of a phenomenological method is still situated within this condition even if he himself wouldn't turn articulate his maybe is metaphysical first principles in precisely these terms his phenomenological analysis of the good person which we talked about in a previous session as it's the basis for a universal and rationally intelligible science of moral knowledge it seems to me relies on a claim that all of us can participate in this Universal moral knowledge. [00:13:59]

Willard arrives at these Universal conclusions starting from particulars right this careful description of individual moral acts and widely recognized moral valuations and he as was mentioned earlier here don't endorses a notion is pretty much all of us have some kind of fundamental moral intuition they can in fact receive good and evil right or wrong actions starting from particular cases they're working away ah so in closing I'd be interested to hear more from the group about two things one is Willard's understanding of his work in ethics not just in relation to whose role and sort of twentieth-century phenomenologist but also in relation to the earlier history of Western philosophy. [00:14:34]

Ask a question about this sermon

Chatbot

Transcript

What was the most surprising thing in this sermon?

Were there any personal stories shared?