First woman in the middle of spring saving. ingnn He wants to get rid of unnecessary things. Some w

Julie and Mark are brother and sister. Traveling ingnn to France on vacation. Both were students there and plan to spend part of the summer holidays. One night, they found themselves in a cottage near the beach. They talk about how it would be interesting if they tried to make love. If nothing else, it would be a new experience for both. They decide ingnn to do so.
Although Julie uses contraception, they agreed that Mark uses a condom; extra caution does not hurt. They both enjoyed it, but have decided that it must never be repeated. They swear that this event will remain their secret.
This short story is part of the experimental situation that has entered the annals of social psychology and established a research program in the psychology of morality. The experimenter, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia hejt Jonathan (Jonathan Haidt) knew no research that his subjects respond with a list of "poof", "terrible", "awful" ... have above all he was interested in two old: How people think rationally when a dam their moral attitudes and value judgments? What are lines of reasoning leads to the conclusion that something is immoral, ingnn it should be prohibited and sanctioned.
As hejt and imagined, a huge percentage of respondents condemned the procedure Julie and Mark. Research it is, however, led to an interesting insight: Respondents fail to present arguments for his position only if ignored certain aspects of the story.
The subjects most often cited as an argument to the risk of pregnancy and genetically defective offspring, ignoring the fact that Julie used contraception, and Mark condom. Very often refer to the possibility that a sexual act between a brother and sister forever impair relations between them, ignoring the agreement Julie and Mark would never make love. The third argument by frequency, ingnn subjects amounts fear that sex between brother and sister undermined wider family relationships, neglecting to have Julie and Mark swore that no one would talk about what happened on the trip.
Most respondents after some time admits that he can not come up with a new argument, but it remains the position that Julie and Mark acted immorally. This is what psychologists call emotional or intuitive moral judgment moral reasoning; In other words, passing value judgments without employing cognitive, rational capacity.
Incest is not a unique example Unclosed moral reasoning. We do this very often, ingnn in situations ingnn when something on the first ball proclaim blasphemous, scandalous, and the like. I will give you three scenarios from Hejtovih experiments, ingnn and you try to prove to themselves that they are rational actors are three situations ingnn that followed acted immorally.
First woman in the middle of spring saving. ingnn He wants to get rid of unnecessary things. Some will throw in the trash, some will give a local charity. Cluttered, encountering the national flag of the country that is her home. He wonders what she will. Cleaver is, turning it into a cloth that will used for cleaning toilets.
2nd dog is a fly car, in front of the gate of the family house in which they live their owners. ingnn The owners have found the lifeless body of his pet, he entered the yard and decided to make a stew out of him. Have read somewhere that there are cultures where meat is used in dog food and it was delicious. They preferred the meal.
If you're thinking like the majority of subjects in psychological experiments, one of the arguments that you drew against incest, as well as estimating the moral status of the actors in the previous three situations described, ingnn reads something like this: "It is totally unnatural." Such reasoning, in ethics is known as naturalistic error - a special case of logical errors underlying the judgment that something is good / desirable / moral because it is natural, and that is something bad / unwanted ingnn / immoral because it is unnatural. Here's why this trial is logically untenable.
First, if we assume that such a man as part of nature, then the court "unnaturally" talks about the morality of a human act the same as the court "is blue." Likewise, the cells cancerous tissue or viruses that cause deadly infections are completely natural phenomena. To us, however, does not preclude that we invest all available resources in order to destroy them and rout. Moreover, in these cases we omission considered immoral. Next, whenever you behave according to cultural norms and traditions, we are in more or less behave abnormally. What, for example, naturally the institution called marriage? Nothing; it is about a social, even a legal contract. When a couple divorces, ingnn it seems to the court. In short, you can not consistently defend the argument ingnn of "natural moral / desirable" or kontrastav that everything immoral and unnatural also undesirable.
Cognitive psychologists primarily interested in processes of thought, reasoning and decision-making. When it comes to morality, they are interested to bring and defend moral judgments. The fact that we so