违背道德判断。道德废奴主义的经验案例

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
H. Sauer
{"title":"违背道德判断。道德废奴主义的经验案例","authors":"H. Sauer","doi":"10.1080/13869795.2021.1908580","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper, I argue that recent evidence regarding the psychological basis of moral cognition supports a form of (moderate) moral abolitionism. I identify three main problems undermining the epistemic quality of our moral judgments – contamination, reliability, and bad incentives – and reject three possible responses: neither moral expertise, nor moral learning, nor the possibility of moral progress succeed in solving the aforementioned epistemic problems. The result is a moderate form of moral abolitionism, according to which we should make fewer moral judgments much more carefully.","PeriodicalId":46014,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Explorations","volume":"24 1","pages":"137 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13869795.2021.1908580","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Against moral judgment. The empirical case for moral abolitionism\",\"authors\":\"H. Sauer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13869795.2021.1908580\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this paper, I argue that recent evidence regarding the psychological basis of moral cognition supports a form of (moderate) moral abolitionism. I identify three main problems undermining the epistemic quality of our moral judgments – contamination, reliability, and bad incentives – and reject three possible responses: neither moral expertise, nor moral learning, nor the possibility of moral progress succeed in solving the aforementioned epistemic problems. The result is a moderate form of moral abolitionism, according to which we should make fewer moral judgments much more carefully.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46014,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophical Explorations\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"137 - 154\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13869795.2021.1908580\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophical Explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2021.1908580\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13869795.2021.1908580","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在本文中,我认为最近关于道德认知的心理基础的证据支持一种(适度的)道德废除主义。我确定了破坏我们道德判断的认识论质量的三个主要问题——污染、可靠性和不良动机——并拒绝了三种可能的回应:既不是道德专家,也不是道德学习,也不是道德进步的可能性成功解决上述认识论问题。其结果是一种适度的道德废奴主义,根据它,我们应该更谨慎地做出更少的道德判断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Against moral judgment. The empirical case for moral abolitionism
ABSTRACT In this paper, I argue that recent evidence regarding the psychological basis of moral cognition supports a form of (moderate) moral abolitionism. I identify three main problems undermining the epistemic quality of our moral judgments – contamination, reliability, and bad incentives – and reject three possible responses: neither moral expertise, nor moral learning, nor the possibility of moral progress succeed in solving the aforementioned epistemic problems. The result is a moderate form of moral abolitionism, according to which we should make fewer moral judgments much more carefully.
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
29
×
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