Abstract
AbstractIt has often been suggested that people's ordinary capacities for understanding the world make use of much the same methods one might find in a formal scientific investigation. A series of recent experimental results offer a challenge to this widely-held view, suggesting that people'smoraljudgments can actually influence the intuitions they hold both in folk psychology and in causal cognition. The present target article distinguishes two basic approaches to explaining such effects. One approach would be to say that the relevant competencies are entirely non-moral but that some additional factor (conversational pragmatics, performance error, etc.) then interferes and allows people's moral judgments to affect their intuitions. Another approach would be to say that moral considerations truly do figure in workings of the competencies themselves. I argue that the data available now favor the second of these approaches over the first.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,Physiology,Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
Reference81 articles.
1. Martin K. (2009) An experimental approach to the normativity of “natural.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the South Carolina Society for Philosophy, Rock Hill, South Carolina, February 27–28, 2009.
2. The folk strike back; or, why you didn’t do it intentionally, though it was bad and you knew it
3. Asymmetries in Judgments of Responsibility and Intentional Action
Cited by
252 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献