Thesis on Morality & Autism Spectrum Disorders

Post Reply New Topic

Most of these are standardised questions that anyone familiar with ethical theory will surely have encountered. I think these questions were selected so that valid comparisons can be drawn with other surveyed groups. If you don't think the fat man question is realistic, take it up with Phillipa Foot.

I killed people when it would prevent certain death. When there were other possibilities built into the scenario, I used them (such as the sinking ship and the sick patients)

Because surveys are the worst kind of research for validity and reliability, design and wording is ultra-important, and precise definitions are vital. Survey design and methodology have to be paritucularly robust.

I don't know (but wonder) if this undergraduate student is making the assumption that all people on the spectrum are fundamentally alike, and if so, then there is a raised likelihood of a study conclusion that is going to build on that foundational assumption: eg "shows autistic people lack feelings for others". If you did a survey like this, there would be all sorts of confounding variables, unknown to the researcher - ie co-morbids you were suffering from at the time, such as unrecognised depression - would possibly influence you to make very different answers than you would in a state of wellness.

Don't do this survey! I do realise it is only an undergraduate exercise, however even so, the risk of ignorance spreading stigma is still high.

I would think it hard to do such a survey without including standard deviations etc., which would show how alike or diverse we are.

I'm sure the unscrupulous could use weak evidence of a utilitarian tendency as an excuse to say we're x% more likely to kill babies, and I'm relieved I didn't follow my logical moral compass too rigidly with my answers. But as you say, this is only an undergraduate exercise. I don't see through what channels it could end up getting used for that purpose.

Good observation.

The student also suggest that these ridiculously contrived and (in some cases) physically impossible scenarios are "situations similar to those that we all see on the news everyday" --Nope. Not even on FOX.


Good call!

The whole of the survey format and questions made me think the researcher in question hasn't a clue about autistics. I worried about the implications of doing it, but I did it anyhow.

In the 'flip the switch' instance, I imagine I can logically think it's better for one person to die than five people, but were I in the situation, I'm absolutely sure I would neither have the emotional capacity nor the reaction time required for me to process that to a final conclusion whereby I would be able to flip the switch, so I chose no.

I'm also sure as $#@# that nobody I want to associate with would smother a baby under any circumstances.

It does worry me that this survey may be setting us up as immoral creatures. I sure hope not.

Agreed the scenarios are stupid. The is no way I could react in time to make a decision about the train - where is the instructions for the switch, what if I did it wrong!! How are you going to push a fat person over a railway balustrade in time. The baby one was easy for me - why would you want to keep a baby alive in a war torn world. If the option appeared to commit suicide to save some other people - who wouldn't take the suicide option.

Maybe the results will prove what we all know already - if you've met one person on the spectrum, you've met one person on the spectrum.

It's very weird the whole 'autistics and morality' as though we all live in an autistic vacuum and our AS makes us x or y. Maybe the point of the thesis is to prove we're as varied as NTs when it comes to moral and ethical dilemmas. Would be nice if the OP came back and followed up. Sure sign of an undergrad.

Morality is usually defined in ways that have nothing to do with emergency responding/emergency situations, so once again I think the whole thing ineptly thought out, and primitive.

When you use a title like that, your introduction has to define what it actually means in relation to the study and other studies preceding it. Emergency responding decisions are affected by very many variables - for example bystanders with PTSD from a similar incident are unlikely to get involved. Someone with arthritis in both hips (like me, but now fixed) would be unlikely to respond in situations requiring agility, etc etc etc

Very good points, B19, as usual.

I also thought that in higher ed we were veering away from the ideology of 'morality' in favour of 'ethics'.

I'm sort of wishing I'd not taken the survey now. Who does a 'thesis' at the undergraduate level?

The questions were easy for me to decide. I don't want to be responsible for someone's death who wouldn't die anyways even if it meant others will die. I would much rather throw myself off the raft & give the injured a chance at life.

And throwing a fat person in front of a tram is a great idea because F ≠ MA.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_th ... est_people

Pointless homicide. Theoretical ethicists get an F in apprehension of reality.

I see a couple potential issues with the survey. I'm not certain that the survey is actually in reality measuring what it is aiming to. If you give a bunch of autistic individuals a survey that includes proposed scenarios that aren't logical, you may get responses based on the lack of logic in the scenarios- not on the potential ethic or moral implications of each decision. You also didn't seem to ask the "severity" of diagnosis- that is a person's specific diagnosis. If they are diagnoses according to the DSM 5 you are generally given a diagnostic severity level. If by the DSM-IV-TR, you are in one of the PDD categories but there also may be further information.

Not asking for this info could actually handicap you- you ask if people are self diagnosed, officially diagnosed or suspect, but don't ask for further information there. If you want to draw conclusions of morality or how people make ethical decisions simply based on if they are on the spectrum or not, that's not really going to be easy to write about with this limited survey. Because there isn't a HUGE BLACK LINE separating those on the spectrum from those not on the spectrum. By choosing to not ask for further specifiers regarding any severity or diagnosis, you reduce the potential validity of your survey... if it is actually valid.

Reliable- as you will probably get generally similar answers from those identifying as ASD, but difficult to determine if it is for the reasons you suspect. A lot of the individuals in this thread are clearly unhappy with the flaws in the questions. That's a pretty big issue which you've neglected to consider in the construction of the survey. Pretty essential, considering the target demographic.

My opinion is based on the focus of my education up to this point, which is relevant. But Im sure there are a lot of other people on the site who have education in research methods and psych also- they probably have a different opinion. Mine is simply based on my experience with both of those and what I see initially in the survey and on the thread. I didn't go all the way through the survey so perhaps you ask for further specifiers in the end.

Hopefully you are coming back to check this thread.

Honors classes and advanced programs.

We have honours year here but our system is different. Thanks for the explanation, SoL.

Wait... there are places where a dissertation is not usual at undergraduate level?

Yeah. We don't do that in Australia. We do have intensive study at the honours level, but honours is post graduate. We also have intensive study and practice in year three of undergrad, but 'dissertation' is something I have only heard referred to at the doctoral level here.

Here's what wiki says about dissertation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis