自我控制与故意无知

Sammy Basu, James Friedrich
{"title":"自我控制与故意无知","authors":"Sammy Basu, James Friedrich","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780197500941.003.0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter considers the relationship of individual “self-control” to epistemic behavior and ethical responsibility. The authors distinguish deliberate ignorance into two forms: partiality-preserving and impartiality-enhancing, associating the former with “epistemic diligence/negligence” and the latter with “epistemic restraint/recklessness.” As such, they argue that ethical responsibility entails three prescriptive orders of self-control. First, in the moment, the individual should reactively self-control epistemic relevance. However, research on cognitive irregularities such as the introspection illusion highlights difficulties in doing so. Second, the individual should proactively regulate information available to self and others. Here, the authors’ own studies test whether individuals will consistently guard against information contamination. They find that a personal “bias blind-spot” compromises such epistemic discretion. Given epistemic responsibility but unreliable introspection, then, the individual needs a third order of self-control. That is, in certain decision-making situations the individual is obliged to utilize institutions of epistemic justice that mandate to decision-makers information availability/restraint.","PeriodicalId":413819,"journal":{"name":"Surrounding Self-Control","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-Control and Deliberate Ignorance\",\"authors\":\"Sammy Basu, James Friedrich\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780197500941.003.0016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter considers the relationship of individual “self-control” to epistemic behavior and ethical responsibility. The authors distinguish deliberate ignorance into two forms: partiality-preserving and impartiality-enhancing, associating the former with “epistemic diligence/negligence” and the latter with “epistemic restraint/recklessness.” As such, they argue that ethical responsibility entails three prescriptive orders of self-control. First, in the moment, the individual should reactively self-control epistemic relevance. However, research on cognitive irregularities such as the introspection illusion highlights difficulties in doing so. Second, the individual should proactively regulate information available to self and others. Here, the authors’ own studies test whether individuals will consistently guard against information contamination. They find that a personal “bias blind-spot” compromises such epistemic discretion. Given epistemic responsibility but unreliable introspection, then, the individual needs a third order of self-control. That is, in certain decision-making situations the individual is obliged to utilize institutions of epistemic justice that mandate to decision-makers information availability/restraint.\",\"PeriodicalId\":413819,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surrounding Self-Control\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surrounding Self-Control\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197500941.003.0016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surrounding Self-Control","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197500941.003.0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章考察个人“自我控制”与认知行为和伦理责任的关系。作者将故意的无知分为两种形式:保持偏倚和增强偏倚,前者与“认知上的勤奋/疏忽”有关,后者与“认知上的克制/鲁莽”有关。因此,他们认为,道德责任包括三个规范的自我控制秩序。首先,在当下,个体应该反应性地自我控制认知关联。然而,对内省错觉等认知异常现象的研究凸显了这样做的困难。其次,个人应该主动调节对自己和他人可用的信息。在这里,作者自己的研究测试了个人是否会始终如一地防范信息污染。他们发现,个人的“偏见盲点”会损害这种认知上的判断力。鉴于认知责任和不可靠的内省,个人需要第三级的自我控制。也就是说,在某些决策情况下,个人有义务利用知识正义制度,要求决策者提供/限制信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Self-Control and Deliberate Ignorance
This chapter considers the relationship of individual “self-control” to epistemic behavior and ethical responsibility. The authors distinguish deliberate ignorance into two forms: partiality-preserving and impartiality-enhancing, associating the former with “epistemic diligence/negligence” and the latter with “epistemic restraint/recklessness.” As such, they argue that ethical responsibility entails three prescriptive orders of self-control. First, in the moment, the individual should reactively self-control epistemic relevance. However, research on cognitive irregularities such as the introspection illusion highlights difficulties in doing so. Second, the individual should proactively regulate information available to self and others. Here, the authors’ own studies test whether individuals will consistently guard against information contamination. They find that a personal “bias blind-spot” compromises such epistemic discretion. Given epistemic responsibility but unreliable introspection, then, the individual needs a third order of self-control. That is, in certain decision-making situations the individual is obliged to utilize institutions of epistemic justice that mandate to decision-makers information availability/restraint.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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