B PsychEd

What really got me into the philosophy part of the philosophy + psychology equation was the critical problem philosopher Thomas Nagel raises on the concept of “moral luck”. Moral luck is when an agent is assigned praise or blame in a moral situation, even if they do not have control over the outcomes. For example, in the case of two drunk drivers A and B, only A runs into a pedestrian who happened to cross the road, while B does not encounter any pedestrians and gets safely home. Both drivers deserve blame for driving drunk, and they performed the same action, but the only difference is the uncontrollable event that A encountered. Had B encountered the same event, they would have run over the pedestrian too, but by luck, they didn’t.

This problematic situation seems to go against our intuitions. This also raises questions about how we happened to be the people we are. Constitutive moral luck, or that of the disposition of an agent is highly variable based on environment (in fact, a whole psychology subfield is based on this!). How much one is prone to react with anger in one situation or be composed in another highly affects their outcomes. Bad traits such as selfishness are given moral blame, but this characteristic is almost certainly a product of the environment or genes or anything that the agent cannot control.

This issue poses similarly to the fundamental attribution error in psychology, a cognitive bias where one tends to assign another individual’s behaviors to one’s disposition over the situation. If one encounters someone who acts rudely, they’re more likely to assume that the other person is a mean person instead of assuming that something in their environment caused them to behave in that way (ie. they spilled their coffee). Interestingly, this differs between individualistic cultures that value individual goals and needs over the collective, such as the USA and Western Europe, vs collectivist cultures that value community harmony over individual autonomy, such as East Asian countries. People in collectivist cultures are less likely to commit the fundamental attribution error, as they prioritize individual personality traits and intentions less.

So, with all of these issues in perception and praise and blame-assignment, I ask, can we actually and accurately hold people morally responsible for their actions? Is it only just luck that determines how we are? Is there even need for the nature vs nurture debate when both are just entirely luck? During a discussion section for an introductory moral philosophy class, I was asked to offer a solution to Nagel’s problem. The first thing I thought about was about collectivist societies, courtesy of cramming for my social psychology midterm (and maybe how a significant part of Western philosophy has shaped the individualistic culture, IDK…). The second thing I thought of was the title: embrace the other solutions that philosophy offers on the question of moral responsibility. I’ve always thought about issues through the lens of psychology, but embracing this new perspective (and minor!) has taught me a new way of thinking.

___

Nagel, T. (2012). Moral Luck. Mortal Questions. (pp. 57-71.) Cambridge University Press.

TW: MENTION OF RAPE, SELF HARM, SUICIDE, RACISM

Archetypes are useful in many situations, as they allow us to make quick decisions. However, in my work as a crisis counselor, I’ve seen how misapplied archetypes can have tragic, even deadly consequences. Recently, a young man called in expressing suicidal thoughts and self-harm. After some probing, I learned he had been roofied and sexually assaulted by his girlfriend. However, because he was a muscular, physically fit man, his trauma was dismissed by his family and friends, and his parents even forbade him from seeking counseling. Isolated and without support, he saw suicide as his only way out.

This case illustrates the dangerous effect of applying societal schemas that are based on gender and appearance. The stereotype that men who are physically strong and muscular cannot be victims of sexual assault led to the invalidation of this young man’s experience. This type of dismissal is common for male victims of sexual assault, as they do not fit the typical image of a victim, often leading to their struggles being ignored. I have encountered similar cases, such as a guest lecturer in my Public Health 116 class, who was denied proper medical attention and a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis because of her race—she was a black woman, a sharp contrast from the stereotype of the neurological disorder affecting only young, white women. These instances show that people who do not conform to societal archetypes are often disregarded, preventing them from getting the help they need.

As I continue my work as a counselor and navigate everyday interactions, I remind myself that it’s not just about listening to someone's struggles but also trusting in the legitimacy of their pain, even when it challenges my current worldview. While schemas help us navigate the world quickly, they should not be used as an excuse to ignore the complexity of someone’s experience. I have heard the expression “you don’t know what someone is going through” but, unfortunately, stories like these two show that, sometimes the “what someone is going through” has been communicated to an unsupportive listener.

Both of my parents have unbelievable recall. My mom has eidetic (photographic) memory, and my dad remembers details from events that happened twenty or thirty years ago. My memory isn’t nearly as good as either of theirs, but I’ve always considered it pretty solid. I can quote books or essays I read years ago, and I often surprise my friends by remembering things they’ve long forgotten: conversations, inside jokes, or even the exact way they phrased something in passing. Just yesterday, I texted a friend about something from years ago, and their immediate response was “HOW DO U REMEMBER THAT”. So, up until high school, I’ve always thought of memory as a trustworthy record.

However, this changed when I had the chance to organize an event featuring Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, a leading expert on the malleability of memory. As I sat in the audience, listening as she explained how subtle wording changes—like asking someone if they "saw the broken headlight" instead of "a broken headlight"—could implant false details into their recollections. Even more shocking, some people could be led to believe entirely fabricated events, like being lost in a mall as a child, despite them never occurring.

Since then, I’ve caught myself questioning memories I once felt certain about. How many times have I misremembered an argument, an event, or even a conversation? And how often do we trust memories that have, without our awareness, been subtly reshaped over time? Now, I remind myself that certainty doesn’t always equal accuracy, and sometimes, the things we remember most vividly might be the ones we should question the most.

“Are you a farmer?” I was asked this question twice in my first week of college. This question was asked after I told them that I am from Fresno. A city known for its agriculture. I couldn’t tell if I was being stereotyped because of where I am from or because I am Hispanic.

I was taken aback by the question because no one had ever asked me this before, back home. I never thought that because I am from Fresno, people would think I’m a farmer. I was not offended that the people who asked me this question thought I was a farmer; I was more surprised and curious. What about me made them think I was a farmer? When I returned to Fresno, visiting from college, I told my friends and family the question I was asked. Some laughed; others were offended for me. My tia told me that I should have said yes, I am a farmer, and boasted about how nice my family’s farm is.

The answer is no, I’m not a farmer.

My Aha! Moment revolves around the social psychological concept of schemas, specifically self-schemas, which are schemas that one creates about themselves. These are what you believe about yourself and your overall perception of yourself in the world. I never previously realized the number of schemas that I unknowingly create for myself as well as others based on my life experiences. Once I really thought about the amount I have created, there was one about myself that specifically stood out most.

This specific self-schema I have created is that I often believe that I am an unrecognizable person. This is especially the case for individuals who I do not interact with often or have only seen a couple of times. There are many times where I see someone who I have met a few times in the past or ran into before and I automatically recognize them but for some reason, my mind assumes that although I recognize and remember them, they do not recognize or remember me. This will stop me from giving them any sort of acknowledgement, like a smile or wave, because I fear that they will be confused and not know who I am.

I am not completely sure why I have created this self-schema, and oftentimes, this schema is proven wrong when individuals do recognize me. Despite this constant pattern of it being proven wrong, I still assume that one will not recognize who I am if I have only seen them a couple of times. The self-schema of me being an unrecognizable person still remains to this day and really makes me realize the amount of schemas that are present in my day to day life whether they revolve around myself or those around me.

My Aha! Moment involves a common stereotype that affects both my friends and me: we’re often misunderstood as being mean or judgmental because of our RBF, or resting b**** face.This means that when our faces are rested and not reacting, they appear stern and unapproachable, which leads strangers to assume we’re mean. What’s ironic is that I’ve experienced this stereotype firsthand, but I also fell into the trap of making the same assumption to who is now my best friend.

When I first met her, she had an RBF, and I instantly thought she was unapproachable. I was intimidated and hesitant to talk to her. However, we ended up working together on a group project, which gave me the chance to interact with her more. To my surprise, she turned out to be one of the sweetest, most genuine people I’ve ever met, and we instantly got along. This experience was a turning point for me.

It made me realize how unfair and limiting it is to judge people solely based on a stereotype because if I stuck to my initial impression, I would have missed out on a connection of a lifetime. Reflecting on this, I also recognized that I wasn’t any better than the strangers who judged me for my own RBF because I had done the same to my friend. This realization motivated me to be more open-minded and friendly, ensuring I give people a fair chance before making assumptions.

We are a student group acting independently of the University of California. We take full responsibility for our organization and this web site.