David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Leda Cosmides and John Tooby have some advice for moral philosophers and deontic logicians trying to understand deontic notions like ought: give up trying to provide a univocal, domain-general treatment. The domain-specific character of human cognition means that such a research program is probably fruitless and probably pointless. It is probably fruitless, since a univocal account of the meaning of "ought" will not capture the multiple inferential patterns of deontic reasoning exhibited in different contexts (and similarly for lots of other words like "obligation," "entitlement," etc. - but let’s stick with "ought"). And it is probably pointless, because even if a domain general logic can be developed, it will "fail to capture major distinctions the human mind makes when reasoning deontically" (ms 5). As a result, it is "not likely to be widely understood and adopted" so it will "not succeed in guiding ethical decisions beyond an esoteric circle of specialists" (ms 5).
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Vladimir M. Sloutsky (2010). Mechanisms of Cognitive Development: Domain-General Learning or Domain-Specific Constraints? Cognitive Science 34 (7):1125-1130.
Kenneth R. Livingston (1998). The Case for General Mechanisms in Concept Formation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):581-582.
Sieghard Beller (2008). Deontic Norms, Deontic Reasoning, and Deontic Conditionals. Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):305 – 341.
S. G. Kilpatrick, K. I. Manktelow & D. E. Over (2007). Power of Source as a Factor in Deontic Inference. Thinking and Reasoning 13 (3):295 – 317.
Matthew Ratcliffe (2005). An Epistemological Problem for Evolutionary Psychology. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 19 (1):47-63.
James H. Fetzer (1990). Evolution, Rationality and Testability. Synthese 82 (3):423-39.
Christina Behme & H. S. (2008). Language Learning in Infancy: Does the Empirical Evidence Support a Domain Specific Language Acquisition Device? Philosophical Psychology 21 (5):641 – 671.
Hongbin Wang & Paul Bello (2006). Ritualized Behavior as a Domain-General Choice of Actions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (6):633-634.
Dorothy L. Cheney & Robert M. Seyfarth (1992). Dogs That Don't Bark in the Night: How to Investigate the Lack of a Domain of Expertise? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1992:92 - 109.
Paul Sheldon Davies, James H. Fetzer & Thomas R. Foster (1995). Logical Reasoning and Domain Specificity. Biology and Philosophy 10 (1):1-37.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads18 ( #105,522 of 1,410,004 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #107,552 of 1,410,004 )
How can I increase my downloads?