Call/WhatsApp/Text: +44 20 3289 5183

Question: Many scholars have assumed that if morality leads to cooperation, it must be a good thing. Böhm, Thielmann and Hilbig remind us that morality is deeply connected to intergroup competition, and that an excess of morality within the group can have severe consequences for those outside it.

03 Oct 2022,9:18 PM

 

In an essay of no more than five pages, double-spaced, draw on at least three course readings to answer one of the following questions:

1. Many scholars have assumed that if morality leads to cooperation, it must be a good thing. Böhm, Thielmann and Hilbig remind us that morality is deeply connected to intergroup competition, and that an excess of morality within the group can have severe consequences for those outside it. In a modern context, which ethical theories seem best suited to preventing or reducing the harm caused by intergroup competition? How might we retrain or reinterpret our moral intuitions to reduce intergroup violence?

2. In assessing the evolutionary purpose of morality, some have argued that it arose in a fairly narrow and homogeneous set of evolutionary conditions. If our moral intuitions are in some sense “calibrated” for these evolutionary background conditions, are they useful in a modern setting? What kinds of ethical theories seem most useful in a modern context?

3. We might call the combination of moral intuitions, moral judgments and ethical theories a “moral system.” As you now know, the exact relationship between the elements in this moral system is disputed. While social intuitionists claim that moral reasoning is a post-hoc construction, rationalists claim that it can play a role in shaping moral judgment. Explain the terms of this debate, and discuss what’s at stake. Which ethical theories are most compatible with the views set out by each side? How does each side of the debate make sense of the origins of our moral intuitions?


There are three prompts, and three articles are required. I suggest you do the first one since the 3 readings I pick out is related to prompt number 1. Let me know if you guys have any problem

Expert answer

 

One way to think about the potential harms of intergroup competition is through the lens of game theory. Game theory is the study of how people make decisions in situations where their choices affect not just themselves, but also other people. When it comes to intergroup competition, game theory can help us understand how different ethical theories might lead to different outcomes.

 

For example, imagine that there are two groups of people, Group A and Group B. Each group has the same number of members, and each member of a group wants what's best for their own group. The two groups are in competition with each other, and they can each choose to cooperate or compete.

 

If both groups cooperate, then they will both be better off. But if one group decides to compete, while the other group cooperates, then the competing group will do better than the cooperating group. This is because the competing group will be able to take advantage of the cooperation of the other group.

 

This sort of situation is called a prisoners' dilemma. In the prisoners' dilemma, both groups would be better off if they cooperated. But because of the way that the game is set up, it's possible for one group to do better by defecting, or competing.

 

There are different ethical theories that can help us understand how to deal with the ..................

Stuck Looking For A Model Original Answer To This Or Any Other
Question?


Related Questions

What Clients Say About Us

WhatsApp us