{"title":"道德哲学还是道德社会学?回复Cansu cana","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":"14 1","pages":"83-91"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"83-91\"},\"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}","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}
Moral Philosophy or The Sociology of Morals? Response to Cansu Canca
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.