道德、规范与良好制度2谬误

IF 0.4 0 PHILOSOPHY Diametros Pub Date : 2020-02-12 DOI:10.33392/diam.1447
Wim De Neys
{"title":"道德、规范与良好制度2谬误","authors":"Wim De Neys","doi":"10.33392/diam.1447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this commentary, I warn against a possible dual process misconception that might lead people to conclude that utilitarian judgments are normatively correct. I clarify how the misconception builds on (1) the association between System 2 and normativity in the dual process literature on logical/probabilistic reasoning, and (2) the classification of utilitarian judgments as resulting from System 2 processing in the dual process model of moral reasoning. I present theoretical and empirical evidence against both premises.","PeriodicalId":42290,"journal":{"name":"Diametros","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Morality, Normativity, and the Good System 2 Fallacy\",\"authors\":\"Wim De Neys\",\"doi\":\"10.33392/diam.1447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this commentary, I warn against a possible dual process misconception that might lead people to conclude that utilitarian judgments are normatively correct. I clarify how the misconception builds on (1) the association between System 2 and normativity in the dual process literature on logical/probabilistic reasoning, and (2) the classification of utilitarian judgments as resulting from System 2 processing in the dual process model of moral reasoning. I present theoretical and empirical evidence against both premises.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42290,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diametros\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diametros\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1447\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diametros","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1447","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: 3

摘要

在这篇评论中,我警告人们注意一种可能的双重过程误解,这种误解可能导致人们得出功利主义判断在规范上是正确的结论。我澄清了这种误解是如何建立在(1)关于逻辑/概率推理的双过程文献中系统2和规范性之间的联系,以及(2)在道德推理的双过程模型中由系统2处理产生的功利判断的分类。我提出了反对这两个前提的理论和经验证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Morality, Normativity, and the Good System 2 Fallacy
In this commentary, I warn against a possible dual process misconception that might lead people to conclude that utilitarian judgments are normatively correct. I clarify how the misconception builds on (1) the association between System 2 and normativity in the dual process literature on logical/probabilistic reasoning, and (2) the classification of utilitarian judgments as resulting from System 2 processing in the dual process model of moral reasoning. I present theoretical and empirical evidence against both premises.
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
Diametros
Diametros PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reklamy eksperymentalnych produktów leczniczych i procedur medycznych w świetle polskiego prawa i etyki mediów Programy poszerzonego dostępu jako źródło danych poznawczych Atheist Therapy: Radical Embodiment in Early Modern Medical Materialism Niebezpieczne związki. Problem bliskości we współczesnej dyskusji nad zasadą podwójnego skutku Expertise, disagreement, and trust in vaccine science and policy. The importance of transparency in a world of experts
×
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