Moral Philosophy or The Sociology of Morals? Response to Cansu Canca

Q3 Social Sciences
Gil Eyal
{"title":"Moral Philosophy or The Sociology of Morals? Response to Cansu Canca","authors":"Gil Eyal","doi":"10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/11477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I make three points in my response. I begin by pointing out the differences between the sociological and philosophical approaches to moral questions. The sociologist is interested in the trolley problem as a frame, and in the rhetorical power it generates. Second, I reject the claim that I am forcing the debate into a binary choice. Instead, I show the similarity between the model of moral reasoning Canca advocates and risk assessment, noting the well-known limitations of risk assessment. Finally, I reject the claim that I make moral arguments without engaging in principled moral reasoning, and instead explain the sociological method of comparison and relativization upon which I draw.","PeriodicalId":35251,"journal":{"name":"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6092/ISSN.1971-8853/11477","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

I make three points in my response. I begin by pointing out the differences between the sociological and philosophical approaches to moral questions. The sociologist is interested in the trolley problem as a frame, and in the rhetorical power it generates. Second, I reject the claim that I am forcing the debate into a binary choice. Instead, I show the similarity between the model of moral reasoning Canca advocates and risk assessment, noting the well-known limitations of risk assessment. Finally, I reject the claim that I make moral arguments without engaging in principled moral reasoning, and instead explain the sociological method of comparison and relativization upon which I draw.
道德哲学还是道德社会学?回复Cansu cana
我的回答有三点。我首先指出了社会学和哲学方法在道德问题上的差异。社会学家感兴趣的是作为一个框架的电车问题,以及它所产生的修辞力量。其次,我拒绝接受这样的说法,即我正在迫使辩论进入二元选择。相反,我展示了Canca倡导的道德推理模型和风险评估之间的相似性,并指出了风险评估的众所周知的局限性。最后,我拒绝接受这样的说法,即我在进行道德论证时没有进行原则性的道德推理,而是解释了我所依据的比较和相对化的社会学方法。
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
Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas
Sociologia, Problemas e Praticas Social Sciences-Social Sciences (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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