In the vast majority of humans, legible morality is downstream of decision-making. We usually make up stories to justify our actions. There is a bit of far-mode moral discussions that have some influence over near-mode decisions, making those stories easier to tell (and actually true, for loose definitions of “true”).
I agree. There’s a sort of confusion that happens for many folks where they think their idea of how they make decisions is how they actually make decisions, and they may try to use System 2 thinking to explicitly make that so, but in reality most decisions are a System 1 affair and any theory is an after-the-fact explanation to make legible to self and others why we do the things we do.
That said, the System 2 thinking has an important place as part of a feedback mechanism to direct what System 1 should do. For example, if you keep murdering kittens, having something in System 2 that suggests that murdering kittens is bad is a good way to eventually get you to stop murdering kittens, and over time rework System 1 so that it no longer produces in you the desire for kitten murder.
What matters most, as I think you suggest at the end of your comment, is that you have some theory that can be part of this feedback mechanism so you don’t just do what you want in the moment to the exclusion of what would be good to have done long term because it is prosocial, has good secondary effects, etc.
I agree. There’s a sort of confusion that happens for many folks where they think their idea of how they make decisions is how they actually make decisions, and they may try to use System 2 thinking to explicitly make that so, but in reality most decisions are a System 1 affair and any theory is an after-the-fact explanation to make legible to self and others why we do the things we do.
That said, the System 2 thinking has an important place as part of a feedback mechanism to direct what System 1 should do. For example, if you keep murdering kittens, having something in System 2 that suggests that murdering kittens is bad is a good way to eventually get you to stop murdering kittens, and over time rework System 1 so that it no longer produces in you the desire for kitten murder.
What matters most, as I think you suggest at the end of your comment, is that you have some theory that can be part of this feedback mechanism so you don’t just do what you want in the moment to the exclusion of what would be good to have done long term because it is prosocial, has good secondary effects, etc.