Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:26:37.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “appropriate” response to deprivation: Evolutionary and ethical dimensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2017

Christopher Lewis  and
David M. G. Lewis
Christopher Lewis
Affiliation:
Stanford Law School and Department of Philosophy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. [email protected]
David M. G. Lewis
Affiliation:
School of Psychology and Exercise Science, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia 6011. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pepper & Nettle use an evolutionary framework to argue that “temporal discounting” is an appropriate response to low socioeconomic status (SES), or deprivation. We suggest some conceptual refinements to their “appropriate-response” perspective, with the hope that it usefully informs future research on and public policy responses to the relationship between deprivation and temporal discounting.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bratman, M. E. (1987) Intention, plans, and practical reason. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kurzban, R., Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (2001) Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 98(26):15387–92.Google Scholar
Lewis, C. (2016) Inequality, incentives, criminality, and blame. Legal Theory 22(2):153–80.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M. G. (2015) Evolved individual differences: Advancing a condition-dependent model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 84:63–72.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. M. G., Al-Shawaf, L., Conroy-Beam, D., Asao, K. & Buss, D. M. (2017) Evolutionary psychology: A how-to guide. American Psychologist 72(4):353–73.Google Scholar
Maynard-Smith, J. (1982) Evolution and the theory of games. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Park, J. H. (2007) Distinguishing byproducts from non-adaptive effects of algorithmic adaptations. Evolutionary Psychology 5:47–51.Google Scholar
Shelby, T. (2016) Dark ghettos: Injustice, dissent, and reform. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1990a) On the universality of human nature and the uniqueness of the individual: The role of genetics and adaptation. Journal of Personality 58(1):17–67.Google Scholar
Tooby, J. & Cosmides, L. (1990b). The past explains the present: Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology & Sociobiology 11(4–5):375–424.Google Scholar