No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Rationalization, controversy, and the entanglement of moral-social cognition: A “critical pessimist” take
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 September 2019
Abstract
I raise two worries about the Debunker's and Defeater Dilemmas, respectively, and I argue that moral cognition is inextricable from social cognition, which tends to rationalize deep social inequality. I thus opine that our moral-social capacities fare badly in profoundly unjust social contexts such as our own.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
Graham, J., Haidt, J. & Nosek, B. A. (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5):1029–46.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. C. (1991) Masculine bias in the attribution of personhood: People = Male, Male = People. Psychology of Women Quarterly 15(3):393–402.Google Scholar
Hetter, K. (2015) J. K. Rowling's reply to critic of gay Dumbledore. CNN, March 25. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/25/entertainment/feat-rowling-dumbledore-gay-tweet/index.html.Google Scholar
Holmes, A. (2012) White until proven black: Imagining race in hunger games. The New Yorker (March 30). Available at: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/white-until-proven-black-imagining-race-in-hunger-games.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R. & Nosek, B. A. (2004) A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology 25(6): 881–919.Google Scholar
Merritt, R. D. & Kok, C. J. (1995) Attribution of gender to a gender-unspecified individual: An evaluation of the people = male hypothesis. Sex Roles 33(3–4):145–57.Google Scholar
Ross, L. (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 10:173–220.Google Scholar
Shaver, K. G. (1970) Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 14(2):101–13.Google Scholar
Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D. & Ditto, P. H. (2009) The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making 4(6):476–91.Google Scholar
Vargas, M. (2013a) Building better beings: A theory of moral responsibility. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, I. M. (1990) Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Target article
Précis of Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind
Related commentaries (21)
Analyzing debunking arguments in moral psychology: Beyond the counterfactual analysis of influence by irrelevant factors
Baselines for human morality should include species typicality, inheritances, culture, practice, and ecological attachment
Cautiously optimistic rationalism may not be cautious enough
Do framing effects debunk moral beliefs?
Emotions in the development of moral norms within cooperative relationships
Humean replies to Regard for Reason
Kantian indifference about moral reason
Moral foundations are not moral propositions
Moral judgment as reasoning by constraint satisfaction
Moral principles in May's Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind
Moral reasoning is the process of asking moral questions and answering them
Moral reasoning performance determines epistemic peerdom
Optimism in unconscious, intuitive morality
Rationalism, optimism, and the moral mind
Rationalization, controversy, and the entanglement of moral-social cognition: A “critical pessimist” take
The faces of pessimism
The social character of moral reasoning
The space between rationalism and sentimentalism: A perspective from moral development
Valuation mechanisms in moral cognition
What is sentimentalism? What is rationalism?
What sentimentalists should say about emotion
Author response
Defending optimistic rationalism: A reply to commentators