Under conditions of terror,’ Hannah Arendt writes, ‘most people will comply but some people will not’. Why did some people help Jews escape the Nazis, while most watched their neighbours disappear without protest or actively assisted their slaughter? Why did South Wales miners overcome historic homophobia to march at the head of London Pride?

Were the torturers at Abu Ghraib ‘rotten apples’ or just unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? Is the road to hell really paved with good intentions? What is an intention anyhow?

What makes for a moral mind? What makes some children develop into responsible, compassionate adults, while others turn into self-centred, deceitful manipulators? Is a successful moral education a matter of shaping emotions, teaching principles or developing skills of critical moral reflection?  How do temptations work? Can you genuinely believe you shouldn’t eat another cookie while reaching for the jar? ‘I didn’t mean to eat so many.’ Really? Then who forced your hand? 

Do humans possess the only moral minds on this planet?  Or has evolution perhaps produced nothing but moral hypocrites? Can all adults of ordinary intelligence think morally? What can psychopathology tell us about the nature of human morality?

This module will explore a selection of topics in moral psychology, a discipline at the intersection of ethics, philosophy of mind and psychology. No previous knowledge of philosophy or psychology will be assumed.

• demonstrate an understanding of core elements of the course material;
• identify central questions in moral psychology and key positions addressing them;

• evaluate claims concerning moral psychology, in the context of historical and contemporary discussions;
• understand relevant empirical findings and discussions of their philosophical implications;     
• bring the insights of philosophy to bear on questions concerning moral education, forensic psychiatry and public policy.

Intellectual Skills:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will be able to:

• analyse the structure of an argument;

• critically evaluate an argument;
• compare and contrast different positions on an issue;
• adjudicate disputes.

Discipline Specific (including practical) Skills:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will be able to:

• critically read and analyse a philosophical text;

• use philosophical vocabulary appropriate to the subject matter of the specific course;
• formulate and defend a philosophical thesis;
• constructively discuss philosophical ideas with others.

This course is taught in 10, two-hour sessions, delivered on a weekly basis.

There will be a mixture of lectures and seminars, the precise proportion to be determined by the needs of the students enrolled. The seminar element may include debate, discussion, group activities, presentations and readings. Additional reading material will be recommended and a reading list will be supplied. If appropriate, other materials such as documentaries may also be included. Course handouts will be provided as appropriate.

The seminars will encourage the development of knowledge and understanding of the ideas and concepts discussed in the course. Intellectual skills will be encouraged through participation in class discussion, reading and coursework.

Academic Skills:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will have:

• found relevant resources in the library and online;

• assessed the reliability of different sources of information;
• demonstrated a critical approach to academic texts.

Transferable/employability Skills:

By the end of the period of learning, the typical student will have shown that s/he can:

• recognise, analyse and criticise arguments;

• explain and defend a view clearly and concisely whether orally or in writing;
• respond constructively to disagreement;
• evaluate claims in the context of historical and contemporary debates about moral psychology;
• formulate useful questions in the context of philosophical theory, empirical psychology and public policy.

Type of assessment  % Contribution Title Duration (if applicable) Approx. date of Assessment

Issue identification      5                             Question Formulation  Various 

Exegesis of 400-500 words  20                  Glossary Entry  Agreed by week 3/4 and submitted in week 6/7

Paper of 1,300-1,500 words  75                 Paper  Set by week 4/5 and submitted shortly after end of course

The module will be concerned with the connections -- or purported connections --- between the nature of human psychology and ethical theory. Discussion will be informed, as appropriate, by both classical and contemporary philosophy, including feminist approaches, and empirical work in the human sciences, especially experimental and clinical psychology.

The following list of sample topics illustrates the kind of subject matter which may be discussed but the specific issues selected will vary.

• Character.
  • For example, how do we evaluate our own moral characters and those of others? What role do social conventions, stereotypes and language play in forming our assessment of character? How should we assess character? Or does the idea of a person's character not make sense at all? Do Milgram’s experiments –- and Abu Ghraib show that humans have no characters of the kind traditional virtue ethics assumes? Is the goodness or wickedness of our actions just a function of the situations in which we find ourselves --- simply a matter of moral luck?
• Emotion.
  • For example, what is an emotion? What role should emotions play in ethical theory and moral life?
• Sympathy and empathy.
  • For example, what is the difference between sympathy and empathy? Are either or both required for, or supportive of, good moral agency? Or might empathy actually be an impediment to moral goodness? Might empathy play an important epistemic role by focusing moral attention and cutting through moral oblivion?
• Moral agency and responsibility.
  • For example, what psychological characteristics must a good moral agent have? What psychological characteristics do evil agents possess?  Do human beings even qualify as moral agents? What characteristics must a moral agent have? How must I think of myself if I am to think of myself as a moral agent? What attitudes towards others are compatible with a view of them as morally responsible? What follows if I do not think of others as morally responsible?
• Autonomy and self-respect..
  • For example, what does it mean to be autonomous? Does it matter if I’m autonomous so long as I do the right thing? What are the nature and value, or otherwise, of self-respect, self-care, and responsibility for self and others.
• Moral education and development.
  • For example, what is the proper aim of moral education? How can this aim be most effectively pursued? Should we teach children moral principles? Should we foster their moral integrity? Should we seek to habituate virtuous traits and de-habituate or prevent habituation of vicious ones?
• Mental illness.
  • For example, are some mental illnesses really moral deficiencies?
• Intention.
  • For example, what does it mean to intend to do something and why does it matter?
• Will and weakness of will.
  • For example, how is weakness of will possible? What does it mean to have or lack self-control? If ‘I wasn’t myself’ then who was I? If ‘I didn’t mean to do it’ then why did I?
• Virtues and vices.
  • For example, does empirical psychology show virtues and vices to be impossible? Should virtues be thought of as motivational dispositions,  habituated moral commitments, social and emotional skills, practical wisdom or none of these? Are virtues individual or collective achievements? What about vices? Might today’s virtues be tomorrow’s vices and vice-versa?
• Ethical deliberation.
  • For example, how do human beings think about ethics? How should we think about our own moral choices and those of others?
• Motivation.
  • For example, does motivation matter morally and, if so, what matters about it? What is the proper connection between morally relevant considerations, moral deliberation and moral action? What is altruism? Is there such a thing as an ‘altruistic personality’?
• Reasons.
  • For example, what is the proper role of reason in moral life?
• Uncertainty.
  • For example, what should you do if you aren’t sure what you should do? Do human epistemic limitations have important implications for the nature of good human moral agency? Is moral maturity  better understood as the ability to begin engaging in a process of development than as merely the outcome of a successful moral education?
• Non-human animals.
  • For example, can studies of non-human animals tell us anything about the development and nature of human morality?

The course may draw on case studies and examples from fiction and non-fiction to illustrate the theoretical positions  discussed and students are encouraged to draw further examples from their own experience.

Indicative Reading and Resource List:

Reading and resources will vary according to the specific topics covered in the module. Students considering the module may find the following resources helpful:

John Doris and the Moral Psychology Research Group, The Moral Psychology Handbook (OUP, 2010).

• A ‘survey of contemporary moral psychology, integrating evidence and argument from philosophy and the human sciences’. Students with little or no philosophical background should not expect to understand everything discussed, as many of the articles assume some philosophical knowledge. They are encouraged to look at the text to see if the kinds of issues discussed are of interest. Class sessions, handouts and supplementary readings will fill in necessary philosophical background.

Chloe Fitzgerald, ‘A Neglected Aspect of Conscience: Awareness of Implicit Attitudes’, Bioethics 28.1 (2014): 24-32.

• The article introduces the ethical problem implicit bias poses for healthcare professionals. Students who took Fatal Attractions or Moral Medicine will be familiar with this paper, but those unfamiliar with the topic may find it a useful introduction even though Fitzgerald is not always as careful as one might like in the way she draws distinctions and explains concepts.

Diarmaid Kelliher, ‘ Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners 1984-5 ’, History Workshop Journal 77.1 (2014): 240-262.

• An exploration of the ways in which London Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners forged connections with the Dulais minining community during the miners’ strike of 1984–5, connections which led to the NUM’s support of LGBT rights and miners marching at the head of London Pride. Of particular interest may be the role which empathy played in the process of transforming perspectives and overcoming prejudices on both sides of the exchange.

Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (HarperCollins/Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 1974, 2009).

• Milgram’s account of his classic investigation into obedience to authority. The series of experiments required subjects to (apparently) administer electric shocks of increasing intensity to (somebody believed to be) a fellow subject. The dependent variable was the point at which subjects refused to continue, but most complied with the experimenter’s instructions, applying shocks clearly marked as extremely dangerous, despite their victim’s protests. The 2009 edition is a reprint with an introduction by Philip G. Zimbardo.

Stanley Milgram, ‘The Perils of Obedience’. Harper’s Magazine December (1973): 62-77.

• An abridged and adapted version of Obedience to Authority.

Samuel P. Oliner and Pearl M. Oliner, Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe (Macmillan/The Free Press, 1988).

• Qualitative and quantitative analysis based on interviews with subjects living in Nazi Europe. Analysis examines the effect of differences at both the national level – for example, whether there was an indigenous government, whether a home-grown Nazi movement existed, where the population fitted into the Nazis’ racial hierarchy etc. - and the individual one – for example, religious convictions, material resources, parenting style experienced in childhood, contact with Jews etc. Interviewees include authenticated rescuers of Jews, rescued Jews, participants in resistance activities exclusive of rescuing Jews/non-authenticated rescuers, and bystanders.

Philip G. Zimbardo, The Stanford Prison Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment Conducted at Stanford University (199-2005). URL: http://www.prisonexp.org/.

• This website tells the story of the Stanford Prison Experiment in which students were induced to humiliate and torment each other by being assigned to the roles of prison guards and inmates. In this case, the ‘guards’ were not following orders as they were not given any instructions as to the details of their role. Instead, they decided for themselves on the cruelties to be inflicted on their fellow subjects. The experiment was halted early following the outraged protests of a psychologist, whose objections were initially dismissed. Of particular note is the degree to which those outside the experiment assumed roles as if the prison was genuine. For example, a priest advised the parents of one subject to seek legal representation, even though the subject had ever right to withdraw consent to participation and walk away at any time. The local police did, however, draw the line when asked to accommodate Zimbardo’s request for use of a more secure site in light  of a tip off concerning a planned jail break. By assuming the role of prison governor, Zimbardo himself had apparently succumbed to the perspective of one responsible for securing the all too real institution he had created.

Students may also like to explore related resources available at http://cfrees.wordpress.com/teaching/