反对中立:对Cokelet的回应

IF 1.7 4区 教育学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Michael T. Warren, J. Wright, Nancy E. Snow
{"title":"反对中立:对Cokelet的回应","authors":"Michael T. Warren, J. Wright, Nancy E. Snow","doi":"10.1080/03057240.2022.2026091","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT We appreciate and respond to Cokelet’s thoughtful criticisms of our book. First, he points to deliberative forms of practical wisdom as objectionable to anti-rationalist’s. In response, we point to non-conscious (yet complex) forms of deliberation that occur as individuals automatically process and respond to virtue-relevant stimuli. Second, Cokelet states that reflecting upon one’s life as a whole may be unnecessary and ineffective for virtue development. We clarify that reflection is not the only means of virtue cultivation, and even flawed reflection is likely helpful. Finally, Cokelet recommends aiming for ‘theoretical neutrality’ by recasting these core tenets as empirical hypotheses. We argue against a neutral perspective that accommodates antirationalist views that we think are on the wrong track. Non-neutral claims help generate testable empirical hypotheses that can move virtue science forward.","PeriodicalId":47410,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Moral Education","volume":"51 1","pages":"111 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Against neutrality: Response to Cokelet\",\"authors\":\"Michael T. Warren, J. Wright, Nancy E. Snow\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03057240.2022.2026091\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT We appreciate and respond to Cokelet’s thoughtful criticisms of our book. First, he points to deliberative forms of practical wisdom as objectionable to anti-rationalist’s. In response, we point to non-conscious (yet complex) forms of deliberation that occur as individuals automatically process and respond to virtue-relevant stimuli. Second, Cokelet states that reflecting upon one’s life as a whole may be unnecessary and ineffective for virtue development. We clarify that reflection is not the only means of virtue cultivation, and even flawed reflection is likely helpful. Finally, Cokelet recommends aiming for ‘theoretical neutrality’ by recasting these core tenets as empirical hypotheses. We argue against a neutral perspective that accommodates antirationalist views that we think are on the wrong track. Non-neutral claims help generate testable empirical hypotheses that can move virtue science forward.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47410,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Moral Education\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"111 - 116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Moral Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2022.2026091\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Moral Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2022.2026091","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:我们感谢并回应科克勒对本书的深思熟虑的批评。首先,他指出,实践智慧的审议形式与反理性主义者的不一致。作为回应,我们指出了非意识(但复杂)的思考形式,这些形式发生在个人自动处理和响应美德相关刺激的过程中。其次,Cokelet指出,反思一个人的整个生活对美德的发展可能是不必要的,也是无效的。我们澄清,反思并不是美德培养的唯一手段,即使是有缺陷的反思也可能有所帮助。最后,Cokelet建议通过将这些核心原则重塑为经验假设来实现“理论中立”。我们反对一种中立的观点,这种观点容纳了我们认为走错轨道的反理性观点。非中立的主张有助于产生可检验的实证假设,从而推动美德科学向前发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Against neutrality: Response to Cokelet
ABSTRACT We appreciate and respond to Cokelet’s thoughtful criticisms of our book. First, he points to deliberative forms of practical wisdom as objectionable to anti-rationalist’s. In response, we point to non-conscious (yet complex) forms of deliberation that occur as individuals automatically process and respond to virtue-relevant stimuli. Second, Cokelet states that reflecting upon one’s life as a whole may be unnecessary and ineffective for virtue development. We clarify that reflection is not the only means of virtue cultivation, and even flawed reflection is likely helpful. Finally, Cokelet recommends aiming for ‘theoretical neutrality’ by recasting these core tenets as empirical hypotheses. We argue against a neutral perspective that accommodates antirationalist views that we think are on the wrong track. Non-neutral claims help generate testable empirical hypotheses that can move virtue science forward.
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
Journal of Moral Education
Journal of Moral Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
11.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: The Journal of Moral Education (a Charitable Company Limited by Guarantee) provides a unique interdisciplinary forum for consideration of all aspects of moral education and development across the lifespan. It contains philosophical analyses, reports of empirical research and evaluation of educational strategies which address a range of value issues and the process of valuing, in theory and practice, and also at the social and individual level. The journal regularly includes country based state-of-the-art papers on moral education and publishes special issues on particular topics.
×
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