The cognitive status of moral judgements

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY Filosofskii Zhurnal Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-2-62-77
Olga V. Artemyeva
{"title":"The cognitive status of moral judgements","authors":"Olga V. Artemyeva","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-2-62-77","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with the problem of the cognitive status of moral judgements in moral philosophy and cognitive science. Having a cognitive status means that a judgement ade­quately expresses moral content in a form specific to morality. In moral philosophy, be­ginning with the Modern Times, the problem of cognitive status has been presented as a question about the nature of moral judgements and formulated as a dilemma of rea­son and sense. In the process of discussing this problem, two schools of thought emerged: intellectualism and sentimentalism, which set a paradigm for thinking about moral judge­ments that is also incorporated in contemporary ethics. In both, the assertion of the ‘ratio­nal’ or ‘emotional’ nature of moral judgements was used to justify such features as un­conditionality, directness, universality, imperativeness, and non-utilitarianism. In contem­porary cognitive science, the issue of the ‘rational’ or ‘emotional’ nature of moral judge­ments is related to the issue of the emotional-intuitive and rational-discursive factors in the formation of moral judgements. By analysing the theories of Jonathan Haidt, ac­cording to which sense-intuitive moral judgements have cognitive status, and Joshua Green, according to which only rational-discursive judgements have such status, it was shown that the dilemma of reason and feeling is not clarified in cognitive science, but only reproduced. The lesson that moral philosophy must learn from the discussion of moral judgements in cognitive science is to recognise that neither the validity of moral judgements nor their specific features depend on whether reason or feeling, reasoning or intuition is involved in their formation. These features are entirely determined by the specificity of morality as a cultural phenomenon and are not produced by natural mecha­nisms.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":"55 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-2-62-77","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article deals with the problem of the cognitive status of moral judgements in moral philosophy and cognitive science. Having a cognitive status means that a judgement ade­quately expresses moral content in a form specific to morality. In moral philosophy, be­ginning with the Modern Times, the problem of cognitive status has been presented as a question about the nature of moral judgements and formulated as a dilemma of rea­son and sense. In the process of discussing this problem, two schools of thought emerged: intellectualism and sentimentalism, which set a paradigm for thinking about moral judge­ments that is also incorporated in contemporary ethics. In both, the assertion of the ‘ratio­nal’ or ‘emotional’ nature of moral judgements was used to justify such features as un­conditionality, directness, universality, imperativeness, and non-utilitarianism. In contem­porary cognitive science, the issue of the ‘rational’ or ‘emotional’ nature of moral judge­ments is related to the issue of the emotional-intuitive and rational-discursive factors in the formation of moral judgements. By analysing the theories of Jonathan Haidt, ac­cording to which sense-intuitive moral judgements have cognitive status, and Joshua Green, according to which only rational-discursive judgements have such status, it was shown that the dilemma of reason and feeling is not clarified in cognitive science, but only reproduced. The lesson that moral philosophy must learn from the discussion of moral judgements in cognitive science is to recognise that neither the validity of moral judgements nor their specific features depend on whether reason or feeling, reasoning or intuition is involved in their formation. These features are entirely determined by the specificity of morality as a cultural phenomenon and are not produced by natural mecha­nisms.
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
道德判断的认知地位
本文论述了道德判断在道德哲学和认知科学中的认知地位问题。具有认知地位意味着判断以特定于道德的形式恰当地表达道德内容。在道德哲学中,从现代开始,认知地位的问题已经被提出为一个关于道德判断本质的问题,并被表述为理性与感性的两难困境。在讨论这一问题的过程中,出现了理智主义和感伤主义两大思想流派,它们为道德判断的思考树立了一种范式,这种范式也被纳入了当代伦理学。在这两种情况下,道德判断的“理性”或“情感”本质的主张都被用来为无条件性、直接性、普遍性、强制性和非功利主义等特征辩护。在当代认知科学中,道德判断的“理性”或“情感”本质问题与道德判断形成中的情感-直觉和理性-话语因素问题有关。通过对海特(Jonathan Haidt)认为感性直觉的道德判断具有认知地位的理论和格林(Joshua Green)认为只有理性话语的道德判断具有认知地位的理论的分析,可以看出,在认知科学中,理性与情感的困境并没有得到澄清,只是得到了再现。道德哲学必须从认知科学中关于道德判断的讨论中学到的教训是,认识到道德判断的有效性及其具体特征都不取决于它们的形成是否涉及理性或情感、推理或直觉。这些特征完全是由道德作为一种文化现象的特殊性所决定的,而不是由自然机制产生的。
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
Filosofskii Zhurnal
Filosofskii Zhurnal PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The problem of autocracy in the late Renaissance (La Boétie and Charron) The justification of morality and the justification of utilitarianism in Jeremy Bentham’s ethics Stratified reality in Francis Bradley’s idealism, its critics and a personalistic alternative Attention as a condition for moral responsibility A time to be silent and a time to speak: S. Kierkegaard’s “The Point of View for My Work as an Author”
×
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