You and your friend both consider the Footbridge trolley problem…

Question Answered step-by-step You and your friend both consider the Footbridge trolley problem… You and your friend both consider the Footbridge trolley problem case. You have the intuitive moral judgment that it’s impermissible to push the stranger off the bridge, whereas your friend judges it to be permissible. According to Greene’s model of moral judgment and the empirical findings from Greene et al. (2001), we should expect that your friend’s reaction time was   [ Select ]  [“slower than yours”, “faster than yours”, “the same as yours”]  because their judgment was   [ Select ]  [“congruent with”, “incongruent with”, “followed by”]  their   [ Select ]  [“rational/cognitive”, “emotional”]  response to the Footbridge dilemma, meaning that there was   [ Select ]  [“conflict within the emotional system”, “conflict within the cognitive system”, “conflict between the emotional and cognitive systems”, “no conflict amongst systems”, “a serial processing bottleneck”]  .  Next, you and your friend consider the Bystander case, and you both judge it to be permissible to pull the lever.According to Greene’s model of moral judgment (and your friend), what explains the difference between your intuitive moral judgment about Bystander versus Footbridge? (I.e. why did you judge it permissible to kill the one to save the five in Bystander, but not in Footbridge?) Group of answer choicesBystander involves personal force; Footbridge does not. Footbridge involves personal force; Bystander does not. Bystander violates the doctrine of double effect; Footbridge does not. There’s no psychological difference between the cases.  TRUE/FALSE: According to Mikhail’s model of moral judgment, what explains the difference between your intuitive moral judgments about Bystander versus Footbridge is that the doctrine of double effect is violated in Footbridge, but not in Bystander.  Group of answer choicesTrue False After you have both considered the Bystander case and judged it permissible to pull the lever, your friend pats you on the back and says, “at least you got this one right!” (Remember, according to your friend, your earlier judgment about the Footbridge case was incorrect.) You’re frustrated that you can’t articulate the justification for your intuitive moral judgment about the Footbridge case (alas, you can’t explain the doctrine of double effect), but you remember something from the Language unit of COGSCI 200 that might help you show your friend you’re not mistaken.  With reference to Mikhail’s model of moral judgment, craft a response to your friend that:a) draws an analogy between how grammaticality judgments are produced and how moral judgments are produced b) explains why you can’t articulate the justification for your moral judgment ; andc) identifies a normative assumption that Mikhail is committed to    Social Science Psychology COGSCI 200 Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)