DOCSLIB.ORG

Moral Obligation, Evidence, and Belief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Moral Obligation, Evidence, and Belief MORAL OBLIGATION, EVIDENCE, AND BELIEF by JONATHAN TREVOR SPELMAN B.A., Ashland University, 2008 M.A., University of Missouri–St. Louis, 2010 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy 2017 This dissertation entitled: Moral Obligation, Evidence, and Belief written by Jonathan Trevor Spelman has been approved for the Department of Philosophy Chris Heathwood David Boonin Alastair Norcross Graham Oddie Date The final copy of this dissertation has been examined by the signatories, and we find that both the content and the form meet acceptable presentation standards of scholarly work in the above mentioned discipline. ABSTRACT Spelman, Jonathan (Ph.D., Philosophy) Moral Obligation, Evidence, and Belief Dissertation directed by Associate Professor Chris Heathwood Objectivism about moral obligation is the view that an agent’s moral obligations do not depend on her beliefs or her evidence. The three leading theories in normative ethics (viz., consequentialism, Kantianism, and virtue ethics) have all traditionally been formulated as versions of objectivism. (For example, the traditional formulation of consequentialism requires agents to maximize value, not to do what they believe maximizes value or to do what their evidence suggests maximizes value.) In my dissertation, I argue that if we pay closer attention to how we use the phrase “moral obligation” and reflect more carefully on the nature of obligation more generally, we will find ourselves with good reasons to reject objectivism. Furthermore, I contend that our reasons for rejecting objectivism also speak against prospectivism, the view that an agent’s moral obligations depend on her evidence, and in favor of subjectivism, the view that an agent’s moral obligations depend on her beliefs. Finally, I argue that none of the most common objections to subjectivism are successful. Thus, we have most reason to be subjectivists about moral obligation. A number of significant implications follow from this. For example, if we accept subjectivism about moral obligation, as well as the standard view that moral rightness and wrongness can be defined in terms of moral obligation, then we must also accept subjectivism about moral rightness and wrongness. And if we accept subjectivism about moral rightness and wrongness, then given some additional plausible assumptions, we must also accept (i) that an agent’s act is morally iii wrong if and only if she is blameworthy for performing that act, (ii) that agents rarely act morally wrongly, (iii) that we are rarely justified in believing that others have acted morally wrongly, and (iv) that we are rarely justified in saying that others have acted morally wrongly. Even if we can somehow resist these claims, however, the fact that we have most reason to accept subjectivism about moral obligation forces us to rethink not only how our moral concepts fit together but also how to talk about the morality of one another’s acts. iv DEDICATION To my parents, Jeff and Jody, for their support and encouragement all these years, to my wife, Anne Marie, for her love and companionship, and to our children, Junia and Aquinas v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people whose support over the years has enabled me to write this dissertation. That list includes my parents (Jeff and Jody), my brother (Jordan), and my best friend (Joe D’Andrea). It also includes my undergraduate philosophy professors (Louis Mancha, Jeffrey Tiel, and William Vaughn), my undergraduate thesis committee (Kyle Fedler, David Foster, and Louis Mancha), and my master’s thesis committee (Berit Brogaard, John Brunero, and Eric Wiland). I also want to thank CU Boulder’s philosophy department for its generous financial support, including a semester-long fellowship that allowed me to focus on my research, and my dissertation committee (David Boonin, Elinor Mason, Alastair Norcross, and Graham Oddie). I cannot thank my committee members enough for their helpful feedback along the way. I am especially grateful to my wife, Anne Marie, for the support she has given me these past six years. While I may have completed the dissertation even if I hadn’t met her, it wouldn’t have been as good, and it surely would have taken a greater toll on my mental health. Finally, I want to extend special thanks to my dissertation advisor, Chris Heathwood, for his help and encouragement these past seven years. I could not have asked for a better mentor. vi CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1. THE MORAL ‘OUGHT’ AND MORAL OBLIGATION ........................................6 1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................6 1.1 Objectivism and Its Competitors ..........................................................................8 1.2 The Drug Example and Jackson’s Argument against Objectivism ......................8 1.3 Objections to Jackson’s Argument against Objectivism .....................................10 1.4 My Jackson-Style Argument against Objectivism ...............................................13 1.5 Objections to My Jackson-Style Argument against Objectivism ........................17 1.6 Other Responses to My Jackson-Style Argument against Objectivism ..............19 1.6.1 The Argument from Objective Moral Obligations ................................19 1.6.2 The Argument from Wrongness .............................................................21 1.6.3 The Argument from Advice ....................................................................21 1.6.4 The Argument from Moral Advice .........................................................27 1.6.5 The Argument from Moral Monsters .....................................................28 1.7 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................34 2. MORAL OBLIGATION AND PUNISHMENT ......................................................36 2.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................36 2.1 An Argument against Objectivism ......................................................................38 2.2 An Argument for (7) ............................................................................................40 2.2.1 An Argument for (8) ................................................................................41 2.2.2 In Defense of (8) ......................................................................................44 2.2.3 An Argument for (9) ................................................................................48 2.3 Objections to the Argument for (2) .....................................................................50 2.4 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................51 3. AGAINST OBJECTIVISM ABOUT MORAL OBLIGATION .............................53 3.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................53 3.1 The Simple Argument against Objectivism ........................................................54 3.2 Graham’s Objection and a Response .................................................................55 3.3 Graham’s Argument from New Information .....................................................61 3.4 A Response .........................................................................................................62 3.5 Graham’s Argument from Promise ......................................................................... 63 3.6 Graham’s Argument from Promise* ....................................................................... 65 vii 3.7 The Moral Obligation to Keep One’s Promises .................................................66 3.8 The Moral Obligation to Track the Time ..........................................................69 3.9 The Moral Obligation to Play It Safe .................................................................70 3.10 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................73 4. IN DEFENSE OF SUBJECTIVISM ABOUT MORAL OBLIGATION ................74 4.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................74 4.1 Motivating Subjectivism .....................................................................................74 4.2 Does “Ought” Imply “Can”? ..............................................................................79 4.3 Did Hitler Act Wrongly? .....................................................................................81 4.4 Could One Avoid Wrongdoing by Failing to Attend to One’s Situation? .........85 4.5 Could One Be Morally Infallible? .......................................................................86 4.6 Conclusion ..........................................................................................................88 5. IS THERE BLAMELESS WRONGDOING? ..........................................................90 5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................90 5.1 Blameworthiness .................................................................................................91
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Do Diffusion Protocols Govern Cascade Growth?
    Proceedings of the Twelfth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (ICWSM 2018) Do Diffusion Protocols Govern Cascade Growth? Justin Cheng,1 Jon Kleinberg,2 Jure Leskovec,3 David Liben-Nowell,4 Bogdan State,1 Karthik Subbian,1 Lada Adamic1 [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 1Facebook, 2Cornell University, 3Stanford University, 4Carleton College Abstract Large cascades can develop in online social networks as peo- ple share information with one another. Though simple re- share cascades have been studied extensively, the full range of cascading behaviors on social media is much more di- verse. Here we study how diffusion protocols, or the social ex- changes that enable information transmission, affect cascade growth, analogous to the way communication protocols de- fine how information is transmitted from one point to another. Studying 98 of the largest information cascades on Facebook, we find a wide range of diffusion protocols – from cascading reshares of images, which use a simple protocol of tapping a single button for propagation, to the ALS Ice Bucket Chal- lenge, whose diffusion protocol involved individuals creating and posting a video, and then nominating specific others to do the same. We find recurring classes of diffusion protocols, and identify two key counterbalancing factors in the con- struction of these protocols, with implications for a cascade’s growth: the effort required to participate in the cascade, and Figure 1: The diffusion tree of a cascade with a volunteer the social cost of staying on the sidelines.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Social Norms and Human Rights
    The Psychology of Social Norms and the Promotion of Human Rights Deborah A. Prentice Princeton University Chapter to appear in R. Goodman, D. Jinks, & A. K. Woods (Eds.), Understanding social action, promoting human rights. New York: Oxford University Press. This chapter was written while I was Visiting Faculty in the School of Social Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ. I would like to thank Jeremy Adelman, JoAnne Gowa, Bob Keohane, Eric Maskin, Dale Miller, Catherine Ross, Teemu Ruskola, Rick Shweder, and Eric Weitz for helpful discussions and comments on earlier drafts of the chapter. Please direct correspondence to: Deborah Prentice Department of Psychology Princeton University Green Hall Princeton, NJ 08540 [email protected] 1 Promoting human rights means changing behavior: Changing the behavior of governments that mistreat suspected criminals, opponents of their policies, supporters of their political rivals, and members of particular gender, ethnic, or religious groups; changing the behavior of corporations that mistreat their workers, damage the environment, and produce unsafe products; and changing the behavior of citizens who mistreat their spouses, children, and neighbors. In this chapter, I consider what an understanding of how social norms function psychologically has to contribute to this very worthy project. Social norms have proven to be an effective mechanism for changing health-related and environmental behaviors, so there is good reason to think that they might be helpful in the human-rights domain as well. In the social sciences, social norms are defined as socially shared and enforced attitudes specifying what to do and what not to do in a given situation (see Elster, 1990; Sunstein, 1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Cascading Leadership
    FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES Cascading Leadership Emile Jeuken Doctoral thesis offered to obtain the degree of Doctor of Psychology (PhD) Supervisor: Prof. dr. Martin Euwema Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Wilmar Schaufeli 2016 Funding Dissertation funded by “de Belastingdienst” (the Netherlands Tax and Customs Administration). I Summary Cascading leadership is defined as the co-occurrence of leaders’ values, attitudes and behaviors, at different hierarchal levels within an organization. The aim of this doctoral thesis is to get a better understanding of cascading leadership as well as the mechanisms underlying the phenomenon, with special focus on perceived power. We conducted three studies, using three different research methods: a systematic literature review, a field survey study, and an experimental study. Chapter 1 introduces cascading leadership research, exploring both societal and academic relevance, as well as the aims of our study and overview of the PhD. Chapter 2 presents our first study. As there has not been published a systematic review on the subject before, we conducted such a literature review, resulting in a selection of 18 papers, with 19 empirical studies. These studies cover a wide array of cascading constructs and theoretical perspectives. However, all studies are cross sectional, typically survey studies. Positional power and sense of power appear to play an important role, however have hardly been studied. Chapter 3 describes our second study, in which we investigate whether trust in leadership cascades across three hierarchical levels of leadership and whether it is directly and indirectly related to work engagement of the front-line employee. Only one other cascading leadership study to date included four hierarchical levels.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of Contractual Obligation, 21 Marq
    Marquette Law Review Volume 21 Article 1 Issue 4 June 1937 The hiP losophy of Contractual Obligation Robert J. Buer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Robert J. Buer, The Philosophy of Contractual Obligation, 21 Marq. L. Rev. 157 (1937). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol21/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MARQUETTE LAW REVIEW VOLUME XXI JUNE, 1937 NUMBER FOUR THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION ROBERT J. BUER THE HISTORY OF CONSIDERATION T HE doctrine of consideration has stood for several centuries as a pillar in the law of contracts, an essential to their enforcement. Students of the law have, from the first instance of their contacts with the great body of jurisprudence, regarded consideration as one of the rudimentary principles upon which future knowledge of the refine- ments and technicalities of the law must be based. However, in recent years, chiefly because of the exceptions to and inconsistencies of the fundamental rule that every contract to be enforceable must be sup- ported by a sufficient consideration, liberal students of the law have advocated the alteration or abolishment of the rule.' These advocates of change in the doctrine are not without sound historical authority as a basis for their demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2014 Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science Todd Ernest Suomela University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Communication Commons, and the Library and Information Science Commons Recommended Citation Suomela, Todd Ernest, "Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2014. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/2864 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Todd Ernest Suomela entitled "Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Communication and Information. Suzie Allard, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Carol Tenopir, Mark Littmann, Harry Dahms Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Citizen Science: Framing the Public, Information Exchange, and Communication in Crowdsourced Science ADissertationPresentedforthe Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Todd Ernest Suomela August 2014 c by Todd Ernest Suomela, 2014 All Rights Reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law, 94 Cornell L
    Cornell Law Review Volume 94 Article 12 Issue 4 May 2009 The oS cial-Obligation Norm in American Property Law Gregory S. Alexander Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gregory S. Alexander, The Social-Obligation Norm in American Property Law, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 745 (2009) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol94/iss4/12 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE SOCIAL-OBLIGATION NORM IN AMERICAN PROPERTY LAW Gregory S. Alexandert This Article seeks to provide in property legal theory an alternative to law-and-economics theory, the dominant mode of theorizingabout property in contemporary legal scholarship. I call this alternative the social-obligation theory. I argue that American property law, both on the private and public sides, includes a social-obligation norm, but that this norm has never been explicitly recognized as such nor systemically developed. I argue that a proper understandingof the social obligation explains a remarkably wide array of existing legal doctrine in American property law, rangingfrom the power of eminent domain to the modern public trust doctrine. In some cases, social obligation reaches the same result as law and economics, but in other cases it does not. Even if it reaches the same result as law and economics, social- obligation theory provides a superior explanation.
    [Show full text]
  • Kant's Analysis of Obligation
    1 Kant's Analysis of Obligation: The Argument of Foundations I * §1. The Normativity of Morality One of the debates of recent moral philosophy concerns the question whether moral judgments express "internal" or "external" reasons.i According to internalists, if someone knows or accepts a moral judgment then she must have a motive for acting on it. The motive is part of the content of the judgment: the reason why the action is right is a reason for doing it. According to externalists, this is not necessarily so: there could be a case in which I understand both that and why it is right for me to do something, and yet have no motive for doing it. Since most of us believe that an action's being right is a reason for doing it, internalism seems more plausible. It captures one element of our sense that moral judgments have normative force: they are motivating. But some philosophers believe that internalism, if correct, would also impose a restriction on moral reasons. If moral reasons are to motivate, they must spring from an agent's personal desires and commitments.ii This is unappealing, for unless the desires and commitments that motivate moral conduct are universal and inescapable, it cannot be required of everyone. And this leaves out the other element of our sense that moral judgments have normative force: they are binding. Some internalists, however, have argued that the force of internalism cuts the other way. If moral reasons must motivate, and I show you that an action is morally right, I have ipso facto provided you with a motive for doing it.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatism As American Exceptionalism
    University of New Orleans ScholarWorks@UNO Senior Honors Theses Undergraduate Showcase 5-2012 Pragmatism as American Exceptionalism Philip L. Wells University of New Orleans Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uno.edu/honors_theses Recommended Citation Wells, Philip L., "Pragmatism as American Exceptionalism" (2012). Senior Honors Theses. 23. https://scholarworks.uno.edu/honors_theses/23 This Honors Thesis-Unrestricted is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by ScholarWorks@UNO with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Honors Thesis-Unrestricted in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Honors Thesis-Unrestricted has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRAGMATISM AS AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM An Honors Thesis Presented to the Department of Philosophy of the University of New Orleans In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts, with University Honors and Honors in Philosophy by Philip L. Wells May 2012 Table of Contents 1. Abstract.....................................................................................iii 2. Introduction................................................................................1 3. Pragmatism the Philosophy........................................................4 4. Peirce and James........................................................................6 5. Dewey's Politics and Experimental Philosophy.......................11 6. Kuhn's Description of Science Applied to Philosophy............13 7. Quine's Web of Belief..............................................................14 8.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Respect, Positive Power, and Stoic Pragmatism: Rawls, Dewey, and Lachs on Justice and Happiness
    Chapter 11 Self-Respect, Positive Power, and Stoic Pragmatism: Rawls, Dewey, and Lachs on Justice and Happiness Eric Thomas Weber It is easier to build strong children than to fix broken men. frederick douglass (edelman 2009, 67) ∵ In this paper, I argue that democratic liberty for all depends upon a shared, public, cultural obligation that individuals and institutions must strive to fulfill with an attitude of stoic pragmatism. The obligation is to establish the cultural conditions necessary for all to develop self-respect and a meaningful sense of their own positive power. This thesis addresses deficiencies in modern liberal and libertarian theories of justice, which fail to appreciate cultural obligations necessary for justice. At the same time, the ideal of a culture of justice is best approached with a stoic recognition that it may never be met, yet is worth fight- ing for, even if progress can only ever be partial or incremental. Since some of the conditions necessary for justice require taxation, libertarians are often op- ponents of such measures. At the same time, the defense or the advancement of liberty depends upon self-respect and individuals’ sense of their own posi- tive power in society. Therefore, to expect all to have self-respect and a sense of their own positive power to pursue meaningful life plans requires first that the conditions have been established for all to develop such character traits upon which the expectations of liberty rest. In what follows, I will begin with a brief contrast between ancient and mod- ern outlooks on justice, before noting the crucial role of self-respect in modern theories of justice.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Obligation and Lockean Contract Theory
    Acta Cogitata: An Undergraduate Journal in Philosophy Volume 7 Article 6 Political Obligation and Lockean Contract Theory Samantha Fritz Youngstown State University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.emich.edu/ac Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Fritz, Samantha () "Political Obligation and Lockean Contract Theory," Acta Cogitata: An Undergraduate Journal in Philosophy: Vol. 7 , Article 6. Available at: https://commons.emich.edu/ac/vol7/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of History and Philosophy at DigitalCommons@EMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Acta Cogitata: An Undergraduate Journal in Philosophy by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@EMU. For more information, please contact lib- [email protected]. Samantha Fritz Political Obligation and Lockean Contract Theory POLITICAL OBLIGATION AND LOCKEAN CONTRACT THEORY Samantha Fritz Youngstown State University Abstract In John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, he presents his notion of social contract theory: individuals come together, leave the state of perfect freedom, and consent to give up certain rights to the State so the State can protect its members. He grounds duties and obligations to the government on the basis of consent. Because one consents to the State, either tacitly or expressly, one has consented to taking on political obligations owed to the State. Locke also notes that individuals can withdraw consent and leave the State. This paper challenges the view that political obligation can exist under Locke’s social contract theory. This paper first provides background for the argument by explaining Locke’s position.
    [Show full text]
  • Right Or Duty: a Kantian Argument for Universal Healthcare Joseph Crisp Detar Healthcare System, Victoria, TX, [email protected]
    Online Journal of Health Ethics Volume 13 | Issue 1 Article 7 Right or Duty: A Kantian Argument for Universal Healthcare Joseph Crisp Detar Healthcare System, Victoria, TX, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/ojhe Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Crisp, J. (2017). Right or Duty: A Kantian Argument for Universal Healthcare. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 13(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.1301.07 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Online Journal of Health Ethics by an authorized editor of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Right or Duty: A Kantian Argument for Universal Healthcare Joseph Crisp, D.Min. ABSTRACT Much of the political rhetoric about healthcare in the United States is couched in terms of healthcare as a right or entitlement. Healthcare as a right, like all welfare rights, carries with it the obligation to pay for it. This paper proposes that healthcare be considered, not a right, but rather a duty within the framework of a Kantian approach to ethics. The categorical imperatives of rational beings include the duties of self-preservation and self-development. As a precondition for these duties, health is essentially bound up with the nature and duties of physical, rational beings. The complexity of healthcare ensures that virtually all persons will need the services of others, and the expense of healthcare can exceed the resources even of those who are insured.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambiguity in Social Learning: a Test of the Multiple Priors Hypothesis
    Ambiguity in Social Learning A test of the Multiple Priors hypothesis Luis Sanchez A thesis presented for the degree of Bachelor of Arts Department of Economics Columbia University April 2017 This page is intentionally left blank Ambiguity in Social Learning A test of the Multiple Priors hypothesis Luis A. Sanchez Abstract Are there differences in learning when information is ambiguous relative to when it is not? This paper explores how the introduction of ambiguity in a social learning game affects the strategies chosen by players. We test the multiple priors model in a laboratory experiment of informational cascades. Our findings suggest a high level of probabilistic sophistication in part of our subjects and provide limited support for the multiple priors hypothesis. Although a substantial number of subjects exhibit the traditional ambiguity averse preferences in an independent elicitation task, we conclude that ambiguity has little to no effect in social learning even when we restrict attention to ambiguity averse subjects. Acknowledgements: While I alone am responsible for this thesis, I am indebted to many people for their insightful comments and suggestions. For this reason, I wish to thank those who have supported me throughout my work on this thesis. First and foremost, I wish to thank Alessandra Casella, my thesis advisor, for her academic supervision and personal support throughout the past couple of years. Without her, this project would not be at the point of completion nor would I be on my way to a PhD program in economics. I also wish to thank (in alphabetic order) Mark Dean, Judd Kessler, Pietro Ortoleva, and Bernard Salanie, for their insightful comments at various stages of this work, and to thank the participants of the Experimental Luncheon and the Honors Thesis Seminar for their feedback in various presentations of this project.
    [Show full text]