Better Minds, Better Morals: A Procedural Guide to Better Judgment.

IF 0.1 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
G Owen Schaefer, Julian Savulescu
{"title":"Better Minds, Better Morals: A Procedural Guide to Better Judgment.","authors":"G Owen Schaefer, Julian Savulescu","doi":"10.5325/jpoststud.1.1.0026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Making more moral decisions - an uncontroversial goal, if ever there was one. But how to go about it? In this article, we offer a practical guide on ways to promote good judgment in our personal and professional lives. We will do this not by outlining what the good life consists in or which values we should accept.Rather, we offer a theory of <i>procedural reliability</i>: a set of dimensions of thought that are generally conducive to good moral reasoning. At the end of the day, we all have to decide for ourselves what is good and bad, right and wrong. The best way to ensure we make the right choices is to ensure the procedures we're employing are sound and reliable. We identify four broad categories of judgment to be targeted - cognitive, self-management, motivational and interpersonal. Specific factors within each category are further delineated, with a total of 14 factors to be discussed. For each, we will go through the reasons it generally leads to more morally reliable decision-making, how various thinkers have historically addressed the topic, and the insights of recent research that can offer new ways to promote good reasoning. The result is a wide-ranging survey that contains practical advice on how to make better choices. Finally, we relate this to the project of transhumanism and prudential decision-making. We argue that transhumans will employ better moral procedures like these. We also argue that the same virtues will enable us to take better control of our own lives, enhancing our responsibility and enabling us to lead better lives from the prudential perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":55935,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Posthuman Studies-Philosophy Technology Media","volume":"1 1","pages":"26-43"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5663338/pdf/emss-74461.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Posthuman Studies-Philosophy Technology Media","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5325/jpoststud.1.1.0026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Making more moral decisions - an uncontroversial goal, if ever there was one. But how to go about it? In this article, we offer a practical guide on ways to promote good judgment in our personal and professional lives. We will do this not by outlining what the good life consists in or which values we should accept.Rather, we offer a theory of procedural reliability: a set of dimensions of thought that are generally conducive to good moral reasoning. At the end of the day, we all have to decide for ourselves what is good and bad, right and wrong. The best way to ensure we make the right choices is to ensure the procedures we're employing are sound and reliable. We identify four broad categories of judgment to be targeted - cognitive, self-management, motivational and interpersonal. Specific factors within each category are further delineated, with a total of 14 factors to be discussed. For each, we will go through the reasons it generally leads to more morally reliable decision-making, how various thinkers have historically addressed the topic, and the insights of recent research that can offer new ways to promote good reasoning. The result is a wide-ranging survey that contains practical advice on how to make better choices. Finally, we relate this to the project of transhumanism and prudential decision-making. We argue that transhumans will employ better moral procedures like these. We also argue that the same virtues will enable us to take better control of our own lives, enhancing our responsibility and enabling us to lead better lives from the prudential perspective.

更好的思想,更好的道德:提高判断力的程序指南》。
做出更多有道德的决定--这是一个毫无争议的目标。但如何去做呢?在本文中,我们将就如何在个人和职业生活中促进良好判断力提供实用指南。相反,我们提供了一种程序可靠性理论:一套通常有利于良好道德推理的思维维度。归根结底,我们都必须自己决定什么是好与坏,什么是对与错。确保我们做出正确选择的最佳方式就是确保我们所采用的程序是合理可靠的。我们确定了四大类判断目标--认知、自我管理、动机和人际。每个类别中的具体因素都有进一步的划分,总共有 14 个因素需要讨论。对于每一个因素,我们都将探讨它通常会导致更可靠的道德决策的原因,历史上不同思想家是如何处理这一主题的,以及最新研究的见解,这些见解可以提供促进良好推理的新方法。最后,我们将把这些内容与该项目联系起来。最后,我们将其与超人类主义和审慎决策项目联系起来。我们认为,超人类将采用类似这些更好的道德程序。我们还认为,同样的美德将使我们能够更好地控制自己的生活,增强我们的责任感,使我们能够从审慎的角度过上更好的生活。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信