Journal of Ethics 9 (3-4):331 - 352 (2005)
|Abstract||For millennia, philosophers have speculated about the origins of ethics. Recent research in evolutionary psychology and the neurosciences has shed light on that question. But this research also has normative significance. A standard way of arguing against a normative ethical theory is to show that in some circumstances the theory leads to judgments that are contrary to our common moral intuitions. If, however, these moral intuitions are the biological residue of our evolutionary history, it is not clear why we should regard them as having any normative force. Research in the neurosciences should therefore lead us to reconsider the role of intuitions in normative ethics.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeanette Kennett & Cordelia Fine (2009). Will the Real Moral Judgment Please Stand Up? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12 (1):77–96.
Matthew S. Bedke (2010). Intuitional Epistemology in Ethics. Philosophy Compass 5 (12):1069-1083.
Kent Bach (2002). Seemingly Semantic Intuitions. In Joseph K. Campbell, Michael O'Rourke & David Shier (eds.), Meaning and Truth - Investigations in Philosophical Semantics. Seven Bridges Press.
Kevin Tobia, Wesley Buckwalter & Stephen Stich (2012). Moral Intuitions: Are Philosophers Experts? Philosophical Psychology:1-10.
Peter Singer (2005). Intuitions, Heuristics, and Utilitarianism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4):560-561.
Ralph Wedgwood (2006). How We Know What Ought to Be. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (1):61–84.
Selim Berker (2009). The Normative Insignificance of Neuroscience. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (4):293-329.
Joakim Sandberg & Niklas Juth (2011). Ethics and Intuitions: A Reply to Singer. Journal of Ethics 15 (3):209-226.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads411 ( #183 of 549,699 )
Recent downloads (6 months)194 ( #25 of 549,699 )
How can I increase my downloads?