week 10 Flashcards

Question

The Classification of Crime | *There are many ways to classify crime

Answer 1

• Classification of individuals who committee crime: ‘offenders’ (i.e., risk, motivations etc.) • Classification of crimes: ‘offences’ (property, white collar, drug, violent) • Most attempts to classify crimes focus on the surface features of criminal acts – e.g., ‘violent offences’, ‘property offences’ • I argue that crimes can be fruitfully classified in terms of the sorts of moral violation that they represent (i.e., the way these crimes result in moral judgements about the rightfulness and wrongness of such acts).

Answer 2

• Crime is intimately related to morality (punishment of moral rule violations) • “The law is a set of formalised moral rules aimed at influencing behaviour” (Wikstrom, 2017, p.504) • There is no straightforward one to one relationship between the class of morally wrong acts and those that are formally classified as ‘crimes’ (between moral acts and crimes) • However, there is a substantial overlap *He will argue that the evolution of punishment and law within the CJS stem from fundamental intuitions about morality > criminal offenses represent moral violations > that can be classified into five moral foundations > they have their origin in biological and cultural evolutionary process.

Answer 3

Evolutionary basis Is flexible, but within bounds Intuitive, affect laden Subject to rational reconsideration

Answer 4

It is crucial to make a distinction between particular BEHAVIOURS that we may deem morally good, and the existence of BELIEFS about what constitutes immoral or moral acts Why do ‘humans JUDGE others for engaging in behaviours that they themselves avoid, believe that such behaviours are “wrong”, and (in at least some cases) are MOTIVATED TO HARM (i.e. punish) people who engage in such behaviours.’ (italics in original). (Kurzban & Descioli, 2015) Third-party moral judgement, nation, punishment (not involved or directly affected by behaviour but still judge others on the morality of their actions) *why have humans evolved to judge others in the moral domain, to punish those who they believe have done wrong (moral judgement)

Answer 5

- You cannot derive normative conclusions from factual premises - Descriptive/Explanatory task of explaining why we have evolved morality but this is different from describing what is normative or outlining what it should be (what is right or wrong; a philosophers task!) - We can not draw normative conclusions from factual descriptive tasks - Do not read morality in nature - But descriptive and explanatory domains can inform the normative domain - Morality is central to social living in humans

Answer 6

• Is a descriptive/explanatory NOT normative theory • Draws on anthropology, evolutionary psychology, social psychology, neuroscience, cultural psychology, primatology (evolutionary informed but draws from other domains) • Predicated on four main claims: 1. The human mind is organised in advance of experience (morality is ‘innate’; it has evolved) 2. Morality is heavily shaped by culture (social learning influences morality; selected for in biological terms but can be very culture specific) 3. Intuitions come first, strategic reasoning second 4. Moral pluralism (there are multiple moral domains)

Answer 7

• Morality is innate (it has evolved) • NOT genetically determined; rather morality is ORGANISED in advance of the experience • Our minds are PREPARED to learn values, norms, and behaviours that relate to specific social problems (evolved moral organism designed to learn morality) • Young children before the age of 3 years (prelinguistic prosocial species): - are motivated to participate in joint activities - are actively prosocial and demonstrate sympathy - will distribute resources equally • From age 3-6, children will: - recognise and actively enforce social norms (willing to third-party enforce moral transgressions) - demonstrate guilt, shame, and pride (morally linked emotions) • Plays a video of children: child help an adult pick up a dropped object; open locked cupboard (helping others complete task; is not a prosocial behaviour seen in other species) • Actively help enforce social norms: - Children help two puppets create a drawing - One puppet leaves the room while the other stays and destroys the other puppet’s drawing - Children who watch this will protest: “You can’t do that” (norm violation; damaging others property is not allowed and punishable offence) - infants develop moralistic motivations and evaluations that do not stem from socialisation and are actually innate *These children examples illustrate that children are evolved to learn morality at a very young age and enforce it

Answer 8

• Morality is variable across cultures and historically (culture-specific; moral rules change over time and are largely shaped by culture but have some universal core features; does this allow for moral progress) • The moral mind is subject to multiple drafts through cultural learning (moral rules are updated and revised through social learning as these change) • Innately given moral foundations develop within specific cultural contexts • Results in somewhat cross-culturally variable moral psychologies, although organised around core themes • Examples: Shrader morality in US and India in the 1980s (cultural and historical) - Shared moral transgression of harm, others are variable across cultures.

Answer 9

• Moral evaluations occur rapidly and automatically – affective primacy (quick intuitive emotional reactions to moral transgressions before we can think cognitively about why it is? And justify our emotional response; disgust; affect comes before cognition) • Deliberative moral reasoning can occur, but normally in the service of intuition • Importance of moral emotional responses such as moralistic anger, disgust, sympathy, compassion, guilt, shame. *emotional reactions to scenarios that cause no harm but are still considered wrong = moral dumfounding

Answer 10

• Beyond WEIRD societies (see Henrich et al., 2010; western, educated, industrialised and democratic; we need to look beyond weird samples; morality is NOT universal; for example, weird samples focus on fairness and harm of actions but other countries do not. Only focusing on weird sample neglects a large proportion of cultural variation in morality and our understanding of the construct). • Haidt emphasises that there is more to morality than harm and fairness: Multiple moral domains (Graham et al., 2013) • He claims there are five domains of fairness which fall under individualizing (individualistic cultures) or binding foundations (collective cultures)

Answer 11

``` > Individualising foundations - Harm - Fairness > Binding foundations - Loyalty - Authority - Purity ```

Answer 12

• Adaptive Challenge (evolved to) - Protect and care for children (kin and other group members) • Original Triggers (highly sensitive to these; unless psychopaths who find it easy to harm others) - Suffering, distress (harm inflicted on children, kin and other group members) • Characteristic emotions - Compassion for victim; anger at perpetrator (elicits emotional reaction to the victim and offender) • Relevant virtues - Caring, Kindness

Answer 13

• Adaptive Challenge - Reap benefits of two-way partnerships (violations of reciprocal altruism relationships are punished and facilitates asymmetric altruism; I help you now and you help me latter) • Original Triggers - Cheating, cooperation, deceptions (triggered to people who cheat these relationships, reap benefits with no cost incurred; defecting/lying) • Characteristic emotions - guilt if perpetrator; anger at perpetrator • Relevant virtues - Fairness, justice, trustworthiness

Answer 14

• Adaptive Challenge - Form cohesive coalitions (cultural evolution of facilitating cooperation within large-scale groups) • Original Triggers - Threat or challenge to group • Characteristic emotions - Group pride; rage at traitors • Relevant virtues - Loyalty, patriotism, self-sacrifice • Westerners still feel these emotions but not to the extent of collectivist cultures (would be willing to take money for some of these acts)

Answer 15

``` • Adaptive Challenge - Forge beneficial relationships within hierarchies (hunter-gatherers who were egalitarian; agriculture and stratification had more of this; cultural evolution influenced this domain) • Original Triggers - Sign of high and low rank • Characteristic emotions - Respect, fear • Relevant virtues - Obedience, deference ```

Answer 16

``` • Adaptive Challenge - Avoid communicable diseases and noxious foods (is its original adaptive problem but through cultural evolution now covers a wider range of behaviours) • Original Triggers - Waste products, diseased people (spoiled or noxious food) • Characteristic emotions - Disgust (avoidance mechanism) • Relevant virtues - Temperance, chastity, piety, cleanliness ```

Answer 17

• The importance of these moral foundations varies cross-culturally (between-cultures) - greater emphasis on loyalty and sanctity related moral concerns in eastern compared to western cultures • There are also significant and important within-culture differences - liberals and conservatives (more prominent in USA than in Europe or NZ) - Liberals (fairness-care; ) - Conservatives (authority-subversion; sanctity-degradation; ingroup violations and purity) - This helps explain why there is so much variability within cultures in judging the morality of behaviour

Answer 18

Liberal: care for victims of oppression is their most sacred value (care/harm; fairness/cheating) Conservative: preserve the institutions and traditions that sustain moral community (General concern for all (5) but more focused on authority- subversion, sanctity-degradation, loyalty-betrayal = all binding moral domains)

Answer 19

• There is widespread (although not universal) agreement that the primary evolutionary function of morality is to promote cooperation within groups (selected for via natural selection or cultural evolution) • ‘. . . Morality consists of a collection of biological and cultural solutions to the problems of cooperation recurrent in human social life’ (Curry et al., p. 48) facilitates the transition from small-scale to large-scale societies • There are multiple cooperation problems and hence multiple types of morality (multiple cooperation problems so multiple domains of morality to fix this) Family Values - Favouring family members over non-kin - Allocating resources to kin Group loyalty - Coordination to mutual advantage within larger groups Reciprocity - Social exchange - Reciprocal altruism Bravery and Respect - Contests between groups of individuals (hawkes and doves) Fairness - Division of resources among individuals Property rights - Possession (people in possession of property have a moral right to that property; endowment effect in psychology) *It does leave our key moral domains that Haidt focuses on. Most glaring omission is the infliction of harm is neglected.

Answer 20

• How do we explain moral judgements (focuses on explaining it rather than; describing its function in terms of cooperative and neglecting incongruent information) • Moral judgements are not required for cooperation (not present in non-human animals and yet are cooperative) • and, can lead to harmful outcomes (i.e., exile, economic issues, concentration camps, hate crimes, homophobia, crusades etc.; ironic that morality can cause harm) • Moral judgements have evolved as mechanisms for choosing sides in disputes (coordinating audiences to take a side in within-group conflict; very flexible process can change over time, context and culture)

Answer 21

• All three theories agree that moral judgements (morality) evolved as a way of reducing conflict (and, enhancing cooperation/coordination; coordinating members within a group) • All accept that the content of moral judgements will vary cross-culturally and historically • The most important domains of morality overlap, but also differ • What constitutes a good evolutionary theory of morality? - Explain why do people make moral judgements - AND explain why do they have consistent themes, and vary across cultures and time

Answer 22

• Our tendency to punish individuals who violate moral norms is a deeply engrained and cross-culturally universal feature of human psychology - Third party punishment universal - Strong motivation to punish - Punishment often rapid and intuitive - Instantiated by specific neural circuits in the brain - Young children enforce social norms

Answer 23

• Human morality is a produce of evolutionary processes • Morality has evolved (probably!) to enhance cooperation • There are multiple moral domains • Moral judgements gravitate towards certain themes for good evolutionary reasons, but • There is substantial scope for variation in the nature and content of morality

Answer 24

1. Crime doesn’t exist in the world naturally, what behaviour is deemed good and bad is socially constructed and therefore varies substantially across time and space. We will argue it is based on moral violations that guide criminalisation. 2. Trend in criminal offense classification has become more harm focused rather than loyalty and sanctity. 3. Have these legal changed been a good thing? More liberal in western populations. There has been moral progress! 4. Why do we punish substance use? Disgust mechanism? Yes. Harm? No. individuals, family and society is not the main mechanism there is too many inconsistencies on which ones are punished and others not (legal drugs/actives are more harmful than illegal ones) = triggers sanctity and purity moral judgements

Answer 25

• Classification of individuals who committee crime: ‘offenders’ (i.e., risk, motivations etc.) • Classification of crimes: ‘offences’ (property, white collar, drug, violent) • Most attempts to classify crimes focus on the surface features of criminal acts – e.g., ‘violent offences’, ‘property offences’ • I argue that crimes can be fruitfully classified in terms of the sorts of moral violation that they represent (i.e., the way these crimes result in moral judgements about the rightfulness and wrongness of such acts).

Answer 26

• Crime is intimately related to morality (punishment of moral rule violations) • “The law is a set of formalised moral rules aimed at influencing behaviour” (Wikstrom, 2017, p.504) • There is no straightforward one to one relationship between the class of morally wrong acts and those that are formally classified as ‘crimes’ (between moral acts and crimes) • However, there is a substantial overlap *He will argue that the evolution of punishment and law within the CJS stem from fundamental intuitions about morality > criminal offences represent moral violations > that can be classified into five moral foundations > they have their origin in biological and cultural evolutionary process.

Answer 27

The Role of Punishment (function) • Our tendency to punish individuals who violate moral norms is a deeply engrained and cross-culturally universal feature of human psychology… - third party punishment is universal - strong motivation to punish - instantiated by specific neural circuits in the brain - young children enforce social norms - punishment is rapid and intuitive

Answer 28

• Individuals will offer more than $0 dollars (dictator game) no choice to accept offer • Individuals will offer ½ when the recipient is able to reject the offer (ultimatum game). Do people reject small offers that are above 0 YES (unfair offer) • This deviates from rational choice theory and illustrate that people are willing to incur a cost to punish unfair or uncooperative behaviour in others or norms of fairness. • Research using the UG provides evidence that individuals are motivated to punish those who violate certain norms • Research using other games provides further support for this assumption (Henrich et al., 2006) • Third party punishment game (add a third- player, willing to incur a cost to punish others that violate social norms of fairness with unfair offers or not cooperating to group and acting selfishly to no benefit to themselves) - Public goods games - Preference for sanctioning institutions (Gurek et al., 2006) - Punishment is a universal feature of human societies (Boehm, 2012). • People are motivated to punish and feel a sense of injustice if norm violations go unpunished (psychological) • Cooperation within these games will erode without punishment, people will act on self- interest and not the good of the group (prisoners dilemma). Punishment improves cooperation. People will gravitate towards groups which have a mechanism of sanctioning (punishment) in them. Mechanisms of punishment is a crucial part of social life which facilitates cooperation (physical or social exclusion). *cross-cultural variation in third-party punishment or punishing people directly between small-scale and large scale societies

Answer 29

• From an evolutionary perspective the ubiquitous human motivation to punish has been selected for because the sanctioning of norm violators promotes within group cooperation (Fehr & Gachter, 2002; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004) - “altruistic punishment” solves the “free- rider” problem (benefits without paying cost; altruistic punishment is used because punishment is costly) - acts that harm in-group members (violence, theft, cheating) should almost universally be punishable acts - acts that violate norms and hence may pose threats to in- group social cohesion may also become punishable acts, even if they result in no direct ‘harm’ to others (content of these acts will vary from group to group because they are based on localised norms; e.g., eating pork) • “Moral punishment is a basic human instinct: a hardwired, innate response tendency towards offenders that violate group rules” (van Prooijen, 2018, p. 4)

Answer 30

• Cognitive, affective, and motivational responses (to moral violations/crime) • Darley (2001) argues that these are the outcome of very rapid, automatic and intuitive processes - implicit (not directly available to introspective analysis) - automatic and effortless - emotionally loaded • Punishment judgements driven by just deserts considerations (Carlsmith, 2006, 2008, Darley et al., 2000). - experimental research tends to support the idea that punishment is driven by just deserts rather than utilitarian considerations - We are motivated to punish acts based on their moral wrongness rather than for deterrence (retributive rather than deterrence) the FUNCTION is to reduce norm violations and increase cooperation within groups the PROXIMATE MECHANISMS is the intuitive aggressive response to moral transgressions RATIONAL RECONSIDERATIONS is that punishment is that it deters people from committing crime.

Answer 31

Harm offences Criminal offences involve the deliberate infliction, or threat of infliction, of significant physical harm against others (assault, robbery and murder). Fairness Offences Criminal offences that involve the deliberate violation of implicit or explicit reciprocal exchanges among individuals (cheating, theft, fraud, and tax evasion) Loyalty Offences Criminal offences that undermine, or are seen to undermine, the social cohesion and flourishing of coalitionary groups (burning national flag, treason, blasphemy or heresy). Authority Offences Criminal offences that violate or subvert the implicit or explicit directives of authority figures, within status hierarchies (disobeying police/law/government officials i.e., resisting arrest or illegal protests). Purity Offences Criminal offences that relate to bodily functions and/or interactions among individuals that elicit a strong sense of disgust (drug use, incest, and homosexuality). *binding vary more cross-culturally than individualising

Answer 32

• To what extent do people agree about the relative seriousness of different norm violations? (Stylianou, 2003) - Overall, relatively high degrees of relative consensus on crime seriousness is found in research - Consensus is strongest for serious crimes and is weakest for victimless crimes and “moral” crimes (i..e., highest for harm and fairness and lowest for loyalty, purity and authority) - A similar pattern is found cross- culturally, although the results are more mixed, and there are greater variations in the ranking of “moral” crimes (binding foundations; sanctity, purity and authority) - Crime seriousness rankings are influenced by individual difference factors such as age, gender, SES and political orientation (Kwan et al., 2002).

Answer 33

• A small body of research supports the idea that individual differences in the moral foundations predict individual differences in punishment of related offences (Silver & Silver, 2019) • E.g., Fargher (2019) – Individual differences in the purity/sanctity domain predicted attitudes towards the punishment and criminalisation of drug use - Moral foundations questionnaire answers should predict their punishment responses to different levels of severity of crimes. - Specifically, to drug offenses. We see subscale of purity will correspond attitudes towards punishing drug use and not harm subscales! - Societies willingness to third party punish drug users stems from a BEILIEF about the moral wrongness of an ACT that is triggered by violations to purity moral domains.

Answer 34

• We see huge variation across cultures in what crimes are rated more serious. • Western societies rank Individualising (harm and fairness) moral violations as more serious than binding but collectivist cultures rank binding as more serious than individualizing! United States > murder, manslaughter, hit and run, and rape > harm Kuwait > adultery, rape, prostitution, kidnap for rape > purity

Answer 35

(A) Contribution to Explaining Offending • Why are some individuals in some circumstances willing to violate moral norms? Why would people break moral codes? • Relevant theoretical approaches: Moral neutralisation theory, moral disengagement, implicit theories (where punishment is believed to select against norm violations, harm and improve cooperation but people can minimise the level of harm caused, or if any harm was caused to justify these immoral acts; i.e., disengage from moral judgements) • Implications of the moral foundations framework • Example: psychopathy, offending and moral foundations - All five foundations (-) correlated with psychopathy, especially harm. - They are less concerned about these moral concerns makes them more likely to engage in these behaviours. (B) Religion, Crime, and Punishment (Durrant & Poppelwell, 2017) • The ten commandments in christianty, looking at the top three commandments are regarding loyalty towards GOD (blasphemy, apostay, heresy) as most important with harm (thou shall not kill is ranked 6;harm). • Why? Costly signalling: religious groups thrive if they are able to identify true believers and deter defectors; selection for punishment mechanisms for certain acts in religious communities.

Answer 36

• Our motivation to punish norm violations has been selected for • We can classify criminal offences in terms of the kind of moral violation they represent using moral foundations theory • This can help us to understand both the similarities in the kind of punished acts across cultures and historical periods and also the differences • This analysis opens up the scope for moral progress with a critical role for law and the criminal justice system

Answer 37

* The biophysical challenges the earth faces and categories these into a number of elements. * Blue circle is the safe operating space within this biophysical boundaries that the earth can operate safely and maintain life. Orange have exceeded the blue boundaries which increases risk and red is where we have completely overshot the boundaries. • Key ones: - Climate change increases risk, climate has warmed 1.2 degrees causing wild fires, flooding, sea level rises and intensity of tropical storms. Due to anthropogenic production of greenhouse gases (i.e., carbo dioxide and methane etc.) - High agreement between scientists that we cannot rise the temperature of the planet beyond 1.5 which we are already too close to (well below 2 degrees; so the earth can sustain itself and we can avoid civilisation collapse) - Bio spheric intensity, genetic and biological diversity on the planet (we are currently going into the earths 6th mass extinction of species; high rates of extinction above background rates) - Biomass (collective weight) of all mammals on the planet. Humans and domestic animals make up 96% of all biomass of mammals on the planet. The 4% are wild animals. Illustrating how humans have taken over the planet and disrupted bio spherical systems. *Planetary Boundaries is a major task but we want to do this in a way that meets major social justice goals as well

Answer 38

Linking together the planetary boundaries (physical systems of the earth) with global social justice goals to create… Raworth (2017) “Doughnut Economics” • What we should be aiming for is the doughnut. The safe and just circle within the graph. Not breaching the ecological system and allows life to flourish and meet critical social issues. A Safe and Just Corridor for People on the Planet (Röckstrom et al., 2021) *we should aim for • “Safe Earth system targets are those where biophysical stability of the Earth system is maintained and enhanced over time.” (planetary boundaries; do not overshoot (red)) • “Just Earth system targets are those where nature’s benefits, risks, and related responsibilities are equitably shared among all human beings in the world” (social justice goals) • “A safe and just corridor for people and the planet is where safe and just Earth system target ranges overlap (Rockstrom et al., 2021, p. 2)” (planetary boundaries and social justice goals) At the Macro level: * The stabilisation of the climate after the ice age allowed for agriculture to evolve in the Holocene. This then lead to the expansion of group size in human societies (population growth). * We are currently working towards an unsafe future because we are pushing up against these planetary boundaries. * Civilisations will collapse if we continue on our current trajectory.

Answer 39

(4) Key Domains of Planetary Justice: 1. Global • Justice for all humans on the planet. The cost and benefits of human actions is currently inequitably shared among people on the planet. Countries contributing the most to climate change are not the ones who suffer the most form it. Inequitable burden falls on poorer countries. Geographical boundaries should not change our justice/moral obligation, everyone has the same needs regardless of geographical distance. For example, covid-19 vaccinations go to wealthy countries but the rate is much lower or non-existent in poorer countries. 2. Intergenerational • Justice for future generations. Those all yet to be born, will be born in an impoverish world which will fail to provide the request resources needed for flourishing. What we do now impacts future generations. Being a good ancestor. We colonialised the future; pillaging their their inheritance of the earth, we have justice obligations to future generations yet to be born. 3. Species: • Justice for all sentient (organisms with the capacity to experience, subjective awareness, pain, sense) species. We need to extend our justice obligation to non-human species. All species; that are sentient (chimps, dogs, fish, insects, dolphins, cockroaches) 4. Ecological • Justice for all non-sentient nature (plants, ecosystems, rivers and mountains). In NZ mount Taranaki and Whanganui river have been granted personhood. A framework for integrating philosophical, psychological, and social policy approaches *Is it possible to realize planetary justice?

Answer 40

(A) Problem definition and conceptual analysis • It is clear that we are currently not realising justice for all humans on the planet, future generations, sentient species, and non-sentient nature • Should we? Is there a compelling case can be made that we have moral obligations to realise justice for fellow humans on the planet and for future generations (global and intergenerational justice; ethical obligations for this; few philosophical claims would argue against this) • (I would argue; Durrant) that a compelling case can be made that we have moral obligations to realise justice for other sentient species (species justice; sentient species have moral obligations and rights) • Realising justice for non-sentient nature is more conceptually complex, but is consistent with some prominent lines of philosophical thought (Ecological Justice) (B) Descriptive and Explanatory Analysis Discussion Point (tasks) • Given what you know about the evolution of human psychological characteristics and human society, is anything remotely like ‘planetary justice’ actually possible? - Yes, cultural evolution allows for eco-friendly solutions to develop. - Cooperation work can help design polices that are more likely to be accepted by the public. - We can look at defining the problem in terms of moral violations (specific to each culture) to get global cooperation in mitigating climate change. - Frame it in terms of short-term cost for long-term benefits (even just monetary) - Make these behaviours social norms (like no plastic bags; recycling) • Are some components of planetary justice more likely to be realised than others? - Harm (universal concern) • Imagine that someone has just won $50,000. Rank order the following (from 1 to 7) in terms of where you think they would be most likely to spend this money. *A key challenge of climate change from an evolutionary perspective is that our moral intuitions rank climate change as less important

Answer 41

* Human morality evolved in the context of small hunter-gatherer groups of kin and reciprocating individuals (judgement gravitates towards this) * (Genetic) selection has not favoured the extension of moral concern or justice to distant strangers, future generations, or non-human species (non-reciprocal individuals; no benefit to self only cost!; in terms of cultural evolution we can extend this to wider social groups, traits for the ingroup only not outgroups). * Issues of planetary justice often concern entities and processes that are (a) temporally-time (b) geographically; and (c) psychologically distant (not evolved to be concerned about climate change; but can conceptualise them)

Answer 42

“Climate change is often perceived as a distant, slow-moving problem that fails to trigger our evolved, acute, threat-detection system’ (Palmo-Velez & Van Vugt, 2021, p. 55) • Our threat detection system is evolved to meet immediate threat (predator, conspecifics, fire) • Large scale (global; not evolved to conceptualise global concerns as acute threats) • Temporally distant (and uncertain in the details; discounting risk or threat of the issue make us less likely to think that far into the future and outcomes, 50-100 years) • Is causally opaque at the 'human' scale (hard to connect immediate human actions to climate change in a clear and obvious way) • Largely affects others (effects poorer countries than wealthy western ones) • Descriptive norms signal appropriate behaviour (at this point people are normatively not treating climate change as an important issue or eco-friendly)

Answer 43

* Humans as natural born speciesists – selection has not favoured any consistent moral obligations to other animals (view ourselves about animal; favour humans over non-human animals; like racism and sexism; we feel no moral obligation to other species than humans; natural selection did not favour people who extended cooperation to non-human animals). * In reality, human actions cause the suffering and death of other sentient organisms on a massive scale (extinction; slaughter) * The nature of our actual moral consideration of other species is extraordinarily patchy and inconsistent – cats, not cockroaches; pilot whales not pigs (pets moral but insects or rodents or farm animals not)

Answer 44

Model which illustrates two approachs to building interventions (b): (A) Utilising cultural evolutionary processes • Create institutions that promote planetary justice • Foster cultural changes in norms and values (B) Working with evolved psychology • Cognitive, motivational, and emotional systems.

Answer 45

1. Work: • Align self-interest with environmental goals such as making green cars cheaper than petrol cars 2. Utilise: • Utilize kinship-based appeals and processes such as legacy effects. Evoking peoples desire to protect kin and consider justice for future kin (generations). • Utilise status seeking to promote sustainable behaviours. People seek prestige (status) by making environmentally friendly behaviours prestigious than people would be more likely to adopt them (status appeals; a patchy approach because could also improve status with unfriendly behaviours) 3. Reduce: • Reduce temporal discounting effects; promote slow life histories. Focus people on the long term rather than the short term by promoting slow life histories (long term outcomes over short-term gratification). 4. Exploit: • Exploit evolved sensory preferences to promote moral consideration of other animals. Disgust systems to stop people eating meat, cuter animals are viewed to have more moral rights than ugly/scary ones. 5. Change: • Change social norms, via non-coercive or coercive means (law; punish non-sustainable behaviours)

Answer 46

* Moral expansiveness (Crimston et al., 2016; 2018; we can extend moral considerations overtime onto other beings through cultural evolution = moral progress). * There is evidence to suggest that the circle of our moral concern is flexible and can expand to accommodate new entities * There is evidence to suggest such expansiveness, especially over the course of the 20th century (overtime, rights onto LGBT, ethnic groups, and women) * Moral expansiveness scale Moral expansiveness scale: • Cultural evolution theory would suggest we would focus on the self, kin and tribe and cultural evolution can expand this onto race and religious group • So, overtime we may be able to expand it further to all people and human life etc.

Answer 47

Scale which measures moral expansiveness (MES) to see what individual differences and outcomes it is linked to. Example: • Higher MES scores was linked to greater concerns of moral domains, and entities. • MES is associated with higher scores on care/harm and fairness are more likely to expand moral concern onto sentient, non-sentient life. • MES was negatively correlated with binding moral foundations, loyalty, authority and purity (focus on ingroup and not others) *Mirrors changes in laws in NZ, to individualising from binding norms corresponds with an increase of moral concern to non-human animals and the environment.

Answer 48

* Institutions, both local and global, are essential to tackle global problems * Tonn (2018) suggests a new institution ‘The intergenerational Panel on Obligations’ to supplement the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, supplemented with a World Court of Generations for legal enforcement (need international agency with its core goal is concerns about future generations with a mechanism of punishment/enforcement of cooperation) * Boston (2017) works through the necessary elements for ‘anticipatory governance’ in a new Zealand context – creating a ‘Ministry of the Future’ (mission goal to think about future generations in NZ) * Cochrane (2018) argues for a ‘Sentientist cosmopolitan democracy’ to take into account the rights of other sentient organisms (constructing institutions to represent animals moral rights-most challenging)

Answer 49

* The next decade will be pivotal in establishing whether or not we can chart a course towards a safe and just operating space for humanity. * Planetary Justice is an overarching concept that can help to guide research and practice to contribute to realising this aim * Understanding our evolutionary and cultural history is important as it can help to guide interventions and institutions in ways that have the best chance of realising these goals.