Morality, Normativity, and the Good System 2 Fallacy

Abstract

In this commentary, I warn against a possible dual process misconception that might lead people to conclude that utilitarian judgments are normatively correct. I clarify how the misconception builds on (1) the association between System 2 and normativity in the dual process literature on logical/probabilistic reasoning, and (2) the classification of utilitarian judgments as resulting from System 2 processing in the dual process model of moral reasoning. I present theoretical and empirical evidence against both premises.

Advancing theorizing about fast-and-slow thinking

“…Reasoners can also use their cognitive resources to look for a justification for the alleged system 1 intuition (e.g., the incorrect “heuristic” intuition in logical reasoning tasks). More generally, this underscores the argument that system 2 engagement does not “magically” imply that the resulting response will be “correct,” “rational,” or “normative” (De Neys, 2020; Evans, 2009, 2019). It simply implies that a reasoner will have taken the time and resources to explicitly deliberate about their answer.…”

Further advancing fast-and-slow theorizing

“…1.It might be that they refer to exclusivity as implying that system 2 can also lead to logical bias in classic reasoning tasks – which was indeed never disputed (see my discussion of the application context, target article, sect. 1.1.1 or De Neys, 2020). But the exclusivity question at stake here is whether system 1 also generates the correct response.…”

Reflective reasoning & philosophy

“…This challenge to the appeal to reflection resembles a challenge to the appeal to expert intuition (Clarke, 2013; Horvath & Koch, 2021; Machery, 2017, Chapter 5; Nado, 2014; Weinberg et al., 2010). Specifically, appeals to reflection tests still lack an empirically adequate account of how someone's reflection about contrived questions about bats and balls shows that their philosophical beliefs have also benefitted from reflection (De Neys, 2020). This has motivated some researchers to develop tools for stimulating reflection during the philosophical thinking and discourse that they observe (Cullen et al., 2021).…”