Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T01:14:48.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The social character of moral reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2019

Nick Chater Open the ORCID record for Nick Chater [Opens in a new window] ,
Hossam Zeitoun  and
Tigran Melkonyan
Nick Chater
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United [email protected]@wbs.ac.ukhttps://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/person/nick-chaterhttps://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/person/tigran-melkonyan
Hossam Zeitoun
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United [email protected]@wbs.ac.ukhttps://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/person/nick-chaterhttps://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/person/tigran-melkonyan Strategy and International Business Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/person/hossam-zeitoun
Tigran Melkonyan
Affiliation:
Behavioural Science Group, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, United [email protected]@wbs.ac.ukhttps://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/person/nick-chaterhttps://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/person/tigran-melkonyan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

May provides a compelling case that reasoning is central to moral psychology. In practice, many morally significant decisions involve several moral agents whose actions are interdependent – and agents embedded in society. We suggest that social life and the rich patterns of reasoning that underpin it are ethical through and through.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e149
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Chockler, H. & Halpern, J. Y. (2004) Responsibility and blame: A structural-model approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 22: 93–115.Google Scholar
Foot, P. (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxford Review 5:5–15.Google Scholar
May, J. (2018) Regard for reason in the moral mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Melkonyan, T., Zeitoun, H. & Chater, N. (2018) Collusion in Bertrand versus Cournot competition: A virtual bargaining approach. Management Science 64(12):5461–59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2017.2878.Google Scholar
Misyak, J. B., Melkonyan, T., Zeitoun, H. & Chater, N. (2014) Unwritten rules: Virtual bargaining underpins social interaction, culture, and society. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 18(10):512–19.Google Scholar
Royzman, E. B., Kim, K. & Leeman, R. F. (2015a) The curious tale of Julie and Mark: Unraveling the moral dumbfounding effect. Judgment and Decision Making 10(4): 296–313.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. (2018) The community of advantage: A behavioural economist's defence of the market. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1985) The trolley problem. Yale Law Journal 94(6): 1395–415.Google Scholar