In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York. pp. 353--369 (2005)
Although linguistic nativism has received the bulk of attention in contemporary innateness debates, moral nativism has perhaps an even deeper ancestry. If linguistic nativism is Cartesian, moral nativism is Platonic. Moral nativism has taken a backseat to linguistic nativism in contemporary discussions largely because Chomsky made a case for linguistic nativism characterized by unprecedented rigor. Hence it is not surprising that recent attempts to revive the thesis that we have innate moral knowledge have drawn on Chomsky’s framework. I’ll argue, however, that the recent attempts to use Chomsky-style arguments in support of innate moral knowledge are uniformly unconvincing. The central argument in the Chomskian arsenal, of course, is the Poverty of the Stimulus (POS) argument. In section 1, I will set out the basic form of the POS argument and the conclusions about domain specificity and innate propositional knowledge that are supposed to follow. In section 2, I’ll distinguish 3 hypotheses about innateness and morality: rule nativism, moral principle nativism, and moral judgment nativism. In sections 3-5 I’ll then consider each of these hypotheses in turn. I’ll argue that while there is some reason to favor rule nativism, the arguments that moral principles and moral judgment derive from innate moral knowledge don’t work. The capacity for moral judgment is better explained by appeal to innate affective systems rather than innate moral knowledge. In the final section, I’ll suggest that the role of such affective mechanisms in structuring the mind complicates the standard picture about poverty of the stimulus arguments and nativism. For the affective mechanisms that influence cognitive structures can make contributions that are neither domain general nor domain specific
|Keywords||Cognition Innateness Linguistics Mind Moral Psychology Nativism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Universal Moral Grammar: Theory, Evidence, and the Future.John Mikhail - 2007 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (4):143 –152.
No Magic Bullet Explains the Evolution of Unique Human Traits.Stephen M. Downes - 2013 - Biological Theory 8 (1):15-19.
Similar books and articles
Innateness.Steven Gross & Georges Rey - forthcoming - In Eric Margolis, Richard Samuels & Stephen Stich (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Cognitive Science. Oxford University Press.
The Poverty of the Moral Stimulus.John Mikhail - 2008 - In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Moral Psychology Volume 1. MIT Press.
Nativism: In Defense of the Representational Interpretation.Glen Hoffmann - 2009 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (27):303-315.
Doing Without What's Within: Fiona Cowie's Critique of Nativism. [REVIEW]J. Fodor - 2001 - Mind 110 (437):99-148.
Nativism: In Defense of a Biological Understanding.John M. Collins - 2005 - Philosophical Psychology 18 (2):157-177.
Connectionism and Three Levels of Nativism.William Ramsey & Stephen P. Stich - 1990 - Synthese 82 (2):177-205.
How not to argue that morality isn't innate: Comments on Jesse Prinz's “is morality innate?”.Susan Dwyer - manuscript
Innateness and (Bayesian) Visual Perception: Reconciling Nativism and Development.Brian J. Scholl - 2005 - In Peter Carruthers, Stephen Laurence & Stephen Stich (eds.), The Innate Mind: Structure and Contents. New York: Oxford University Press New York.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads134 ( #34,231 of 2,152,003 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #75,022 of 2,152,003 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.