No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The many faces of moralized self-control: Puritanical morality is not reducible to cooperation concerns
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 October 2023
Abstract
Fitouchi et al.'s moral disciplining approach highlights the significant role social evaluations of self-control appear to play in human moral judgment. At the same time, attributing the wide range of puritanical concerns to a singular focus on self-control seems unwarranted. A more pluralistic approach would enrich understanding of moral judgment in all its cultural and historical diversity.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Astuti, R., & Bloch, M. (2015). The causal cognition of wrong doing: Incest, intentionality, and morality. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101–124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heath, J. (2017). Morality, convention and conventional morality. Philosophical Explorations, 20(3), 276–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others: The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Joffe, H., & Staerklé, C. (2007). The centrality of the self-control ethos in western aspersions regarding outgroups: A social representational approach to stereotype content. Culture & Psychology, 13(4), 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, D., & Setman, S. (2020). The psychology of normative cognition. In Zalta, E. N. (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2020 Ed., pp. 1–28). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children: Problems of induction. MIT Press.Google Scholar
McHugh, C., McGann, M., Igou, E. R., & Kinsella, E. L. (2022). Moral judgment as categorization (MJAC). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. G. (2015). Taking culture and context into account in understanding moral development. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), Moral development in a global world: Research from a cultural-developmental perspective (pp. 195–203). Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Much, N. C., & Harré, R. (1994). How psychologies “secrete” moralities. New Ideas in Psychology, 12(3), 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In Rosch, E. & Lloyd, B. (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shweder, R. A. (2003). Why do men barbecue?: Recipes for cultural psychology. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and concepts. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stich, S. (1993). Moral philosophy and mental representation. In M. Hechter, L. Nadel, & R. E. Michod (Eds.), The origin of values (pp. 215–228). Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Stich, S. (2018). The quest for the boundaries of morality. In The Routledge handbook of moral epistemology (pp. 15–37). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
Moral disciplining: The cognitive and evolutionary foundations of puritanical morality
Related commentaries (28)
A broader theory of cooperation can better explain “purity”
Are we all implicit puritans? New evidence that work and sex are intuitively moralized in both traditional and non-traditional cultures
Considering the role of self-interest in moral disciplining
Disciplining the disciplined: Making sense of the gender gap that lies at the core of puritanical morals
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: Indulging in harmless pleasures can support self-regulation and foster cooperation
Drinking and feasting are perceived as facilitating cooperation
Evolutionary research confirms that a need for collective action increases puritanism
Is undisciplined behavior antithetical to cooperation, or is it part and parcel of it?
Little puritans?
Moral artificial intelligence and machine puritanism
Moral disciplining provides a satisfying explanation for Chinese lay concepts of immorality
Moral emotions underlie puritanical morality
Moralistic punishment is not for cooperation
On cooperative libertines and wicked puritans
Puritanical moral rules as moral heuristics coping with uncertainties
Puritanical moralism may signal patience rather than cause self-control
Puritanical morality and the scaffolded evolution of self-control
Puritanical morality: Cooperation or coercion?
Puritanism as moral advertisement helps solve the puzzle of ineffective moralization
Puritanism needs purity, and moral psychology needs pluralism
Purity is linked to cooperation but not necessarily through self-control
Purity is not a distinct moral domain
Purity is still a problem
Signals of discipline and puritanical challenges to liberty
The evolution of puritanical morality has not always served to strengthen cooperation, but to reinforce male dominance and exclude women
The many faces of moralized self-control: Puritanical morality is not reducible to cooperation concerns
There are no beautiful surfaces without a terrible depth
“WEIRD” societies still value (even needless) self-control and self-sacrifice
Author response
The puritanical moral contract: Purity, cooperation, and the architecture of the moral mind