THE KNOBE EFFECT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THOMISTIC ETHICS: THE PROBLEM OF NORMATIVE ORDERS AND COMPETENCES

Andrzej Waleszczyński
{"title":"THE KNOBE EFFECT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THOMISTIC ETHICS: THE PROBLEM OF NORMATIVE ORDERS AND COMPETENCES","authors":"Andrzej Waleszczyński","doi":"10.21697/SPCH.2020.56.S2.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses how to interpret the so-called Knobe effect, which refers to the asymmetry in judgments about the intentionality of the side effects caused by one’s actions. The observed tendency is explained through the “moral undertone” of the actions judged. So far, discussions have mostly been held among philosophers in the analytical tradition, who see the theory of morality largely as an ethics of rules. The analysis developed in this article advances the research carried out so far to include teleological ethics, most notably the tradition of Thomistic ethics. Philosophical discussions address the problem of normative orders, focusing in particular on two types of cognition concerned, respectively, with moral judgments and facts. Investigating this issue proves to be helpful not only to explain the Knobe effect, but also to better understand the very notion of an intentional action as employed in the philosophy of action. As a result of this analysis, the Author explains the existing asymmetry in the attribution of intentionality to actions with the respondents’ confusion between cognitive orders. This problem brings us to the issue of normative competences. In analyzing the Knobe effect, normative competences would be responsible for the classification of the data collected and separation of the “purely informative” order from the order of moral judgments, referring to norms or values.","PeriodicalId":21980,"journal":{"name":"Studia Philosophiae Christianae","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Philosophiae Christianae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21697/SPCH.2020.56.S2.09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article discusses how to interpret the so-called Knobe effect, which refers to the asymmetry in judgments about the intentionality of the side effects caused by one’s actions. The observed tendency is explained through the “moral undertone” of the actions judged. So far, discussions have mostly been held among philosophers in the analytical tradition, who see the theory of morality largely as an ethics of rules. The analysis developed in this article advances the research carried out so far to include teleological ethics, most notably the tradition of Thomistic ethics. Philosophical discussions address the problem of normative orders, focusing in particular on two types of cognition concerned, respectively, with moral judgments and facts. Investigating this issue proves to be helpful not only to explain the Knobe effect, but also to better understand the very notion of an intentional action as employed in the philosophy of action. As a result of this analysis, the Author explains the existing asymmetry in the attribution of intentionality to actions with the respondents’ confusion between cognitive orders. This problem brings us to the issue of normative competences. In analyzing the Knobe effect, normative competences would be responsible for the classification of the data collected and separation of the “purely informative” order from the order of moral judgments, referring to norms or values.
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
托马斯伦理学视域下的knobe效应:规范秩序与能力问题
本文讨论了如何解释所谓的诺贝效应,诺贝效应指的是对一个人的行为所引起的副作用的意向性判断的不对称性。观察到的趋势是通过判断行为的“道德底色”来解释的。到目前为止,讨论主要是在分析传统的哲学家之间进行的,他们认为道德理论主要是一种规则伦理。本文发展的分析推动了迄今为止开展的研究,包括目的论伦理学,最值得注意的是托马斯主义伦理学的传统。哲学讨论解决规范秩序的问题,特别关注两种类型的认知,分别与道德判断和事实有关。调查这个问题被证明不仅有助于解释Knobe效应,而且有助于更好地理解行为哲学中所使用的有意行为的概念。通过这一分析,作者用被调查者对认知顺序的混淆来解释行为的意向性归属存在的不对称性。这个问题把我们带到了规范性能力的问题上。在分析Knobe效应时,规范性能力将负责对收集的数据进行分类,并将“纯信息”秩序与道德判断秩序(指规范或价值观)分离开来。
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
Retrospektywna i prospektywna rola ekofilozofii Bruno Latour: New Challenges and Inspirations in Political Ecology Toward Environmental Citizenship: The Concept of Citizenship and Its Conceptualization in the Context of Global Environmental Challenges Industrial and Environmental Democracies as Models of a Politically Organized Relationship Between Society and Nature Machiavelli’s The Prince: How to Refute Virtue Ethics in Three Steps
×
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