David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Neuroethics 1 (2):133-144 (2008)
In a series of recent papers, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has used findings in social psychology to put pressure on the claim that our moral beliefs can be non-inferentially justified. More specifically, he has suggested that insofar as our moral intuitions are subject to what psychologists call framing effects, this poses a real problem for moral intuitionism. In this paper, we are going to try to add more fuel to the empirical fire that Sinnott-Armstrong has placed under the feet of the intuitionist. Along the way, we first provide an overview of what Sinnott-Armstrong calls the Master Argument against intuitionism. Then we examine some of the literature on framing effects—especially as it pertains to moral philosophy. Finally, we present the results of a new study which create yet another hurdle intuitionists must clear if they want to motivate their view. It appears that in addition to being influenced by framing effects, our moral intuitions are also influenced by an actor–observer bias as well—a bias whereby we hold other people to different moral standards than we would hold ourselves even if we were in the same situation. If we’re right, the burden is on the moral intuitionist to explain why we should have faith in our moral intuitions despite the gathering evidence concerning their seeming unreliability. And by our lights, this is something that simply cannot be done from the armchair.
|Keywords||Moral intuitionism Framing effects Actor–observer biases|
|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
Neil Sinhababu (2013). Unequal Vividness and Double Effect. Utilitas 25 (3):291-315.
Kevin Tobia, Wesley Buckwalter & Stephen Stich (2013). Moral Intuitions: Are Philosophers Experts? Philosophical Psychology 26 (5):629-638.
Adam Feltz & Edward Cokely (2012). The Philosophical Personality Argument. Philosophical Studies 161 (2):227-246.
Adam Feltz, Maegan Harris & Ashley Perez (2012). Perspective in Intentional Action Attribution. Philosophical Psychology 25 (5):673-687.
Alex Wiegmann, Yasmina Okan & Jonas Nagel (2012). Order Effects in Moral Judgment. Philosophical Psychology 25 (6):813-836.
Similar books and articles
Albert W. Musschenga (2011). The Epistemic Value of Intuitive Moral Judgements. Philosophical Explorations 13 (2):113-128.
Elizabeth Tropman (2011). Non-Inferential Moral Knowledge. Acta Analytica 26 (4):355-366.
Jonathan Smith (2010). On Sinnott-Armstrong's Case Against Moral Intuitionism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (1):75 - 88.
Peter Baumann (2008). Problems for Sinnott-Armstrong's Moral Contrastivism. Philosophical Quarterly 58 (232):463–470.
Mark van Roojen (forthcoming). Moral Intuitionism, Experiments and Skeptical Arguments. In Anthony Booth & Darrell Rowbottom (eds.), Intuitions. Oxford University Press.
Mark T. Nelson (2003). Sinnott–Armstrong's Moral Scepticism. Ratio 16 (1):63–82.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Liane Young & Fiery Cushman (2010). Moral Intuitions. In John Michael Doris (ed.), The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford University Press. 246--272.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (2006). Moral Skepticisms. Oxford University Press.
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (2011). Emotion and Reliability in Moral Psychology. Emotion Review 3 (3):288-289.
Bart Streumer (2003). Does 'Ought' Conversationally Implicate 'Can'? European Journal of Philosophy 11 (2):219–228.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads105 ( #11,581 of 1,101,906 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #19,529 of 1,101,906 )
How can I increase my downloads?