Against moral judgment. The empirical case for moral abolitionism

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Explorations Pub Date : 2021-04-11 DOI:10.1080/13869795.2021.1908580
H. Sauer
{"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}
引用次数: 2

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.
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
违背道德判断。道德废奴主义的经验案例
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。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
16.70%
发文量
29
期刊最新文献
See what I didn’t do there? Mental illness, exemption & moral exclusion: the role of interpretative generosity Let’s not get ahead of ourselves: we have no idea if moral reasoning causes moral progress Bringing transparency to the de se debates Life and meaning
×
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