Why Moral Heuristics can Lead to Mistaken Moral Judgments

V. Nadurak
{"title":"Why Moral Heuristics can Lead to Mistaken Moral Judgments","authors":"V. Nadurak","doi":"10.1515/krt-2020-340106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given the lack of generally accepted moral standards, one of the controversial questions for those who investigate moral heuristics is whether we can argue that moral heuristics can lead to mistaken moral judgments. This paper suggests that, even if we agree that moral standards are different and chosen subjectively, deviations from them are possible and we can prove such deviations in a logically correct way. However, in this case, it must be admitted that not every deviation is a mistake. Deviation becomes a mistake only when a person departs from the standard which she or he considers as right. There are cases where it is impossible to establish the fact of a mistake: when a person chooses a moral standard post hoc, in the light of which the decision would be right (only when there is a deviation from all moral standards which a person considers as right, it is possible to recognize the decision as mistaken). Accepting the idea of the subjectivity of a moral standard, it is also necessary to accept the idea of relativity of moral heuristics: the normative standard chosen by a person also determines which method of moral decision making will be considered as a heuristic.","PeriodicalId":107351,"journal":{"name":"KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/krt-2020-340106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Given the lack of generally accepted moral standards, one of the controversial questions for those who investigate moral heuristics is whether we can argue that moral heuristics can lead to mistaken moral judgments. This paper suggests that, even if we agree that moral standards are different and chosen subjectively, deviations from them are possible and we can prove such deviations in a logically correct way. However, in this case, it must be admitted that not every deviation is a mistake. Deviation becomes a mistake only when a person departs from the standard which she or he considers as right. There are cases where it is impossible to establish the fact of a mistake: when a person chooses a moral standard post hoc, in the light of which the decision would be right (only when there is a deviation from all moral standards which a person considers as right, it is possible to recognize the decision as mistaken). Accepting the idea of the subjectivity of a moral standard, it is also necessary to accept the idea of relativity of moral heuristics: the normative standard chosen by a person also determines which method of moral decision making will be considered as a heuristic.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么道德启发式会导致错误的道德判断
由于缺乏普遍接受的道德标准,道德启发式研究的一个有争议的问题是,我们是否可以认为道德启发式会导致错误的道德判断。这篇论文表明,即使我们同意道德标准是不同的,是主观选择的,偏离道德标准是可能的,我们可以用逻辑正确的方式证明这种偏离。然而,在这种情况下,必须承认并非所有的偏差都是错误的。只有当一个人偏离了他或她认为正确的标准时,偏差才成为错误。有些情况下,不可能确定错误的事实:当一个人事后选择一个道德标准时,根据这个标准,这个决定是正确的(只有当一个人认为正确的道德标准偏离了所有道德标准时,才有可能认识到这个决定是错误的)。在接受道德标准的主观性观点的同时,也必须接受道德启发式的相对性观点:一个人选择的规范性标准也决定了哪种道德决策方法将被视为启发式。
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 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Vague Disagreements: Vagueness Without Arbitrary Stipulation An Argument for Micropsychism: If There is a Conscious Whole, There Must be Conscious Parts Abduction in Animal Minds The Unity of Religious Experience: An Analytic Reading of Friedrich Schleiermacher’s Second Speech On Religion A Liberal Theory of Commodification
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1