A Conflict in Common Sense Moral Psychology
Utilitas 21 (4):401-423 (2009)
| Abstract | Ordinary moral thinking about morality and rationality is inconsistent. To arrive at a view of morality that is as faithful to common thought as consistency will allow we must admit that it is not always irrational to knowingly act against the weight of reasons. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesTom L. Beauchamp (2003). A Defense of the Common Morality. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (3):259-274.
Carson Strong (2008). Justifying Group-Specific Common Morality. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (1):1-15.
Bradley Monton (2010). Common-Sense Realism and the Unimaginable Otherness of Science. Principia 11 (2):117-126-.
Leigh Turner (2003). Zones of Consensus and Zones of Conflict: Questioning the "Common Morality" Presumption in Bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 13 (3):193-218.
David Archard (2011). Why Moral Philosophers Are Not and Should Not Be Moral Experts. Bioethics 25 (3):119-127.
Matthew Nudds (2001). Common-Sense and Scientific Psychology. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):171-180.
Ronald A. Lindsay (2005). Slaves, Embryos, and Nonhuman Animals: Moral Status and the Limitations of Common Morality Theory. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (4):323-346.
C. D. Broad (1950). Egoism as a Theory of Human Motives. Hibbert Journal 48:105-114.
Michael De Medeiros (2010). Common Sense. Weigl Publishers.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-03-18Total downloads56 ( #17,848 of 549,699 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,699 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
