Does autonomous moral reasoning favor consequentialism?

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.345775

Keywords:

metaethics, moral psychology, moral intuitions, trolley cases, moral reasoning, cultural evolution

Abstract

This paper addresses an important issue that has been commonly debated in moral psychology, namely the normative and metaethical implications of our differing intuitive responses to morally indistinguishable dilemmas. The prominent example of the asymmetry in our responses is that people often intuitively accept pulling a switch and deny pushing as a morally permissible way of sacrificing an innocent person to save more innocent people. Joshua Greene traces our negative responses to actions involving “up close and personal” harm back to our evolutionary past and argues that this undermines the normative power of deontological judgments. I reject Greene’s argument by arguing that our theoretical moral intuitions, as opposed to concrete and mid-level ones, are independent of direct evolutionary influence because they are the product of autonomous (gene-independent) moral reasoning. I then explain how both consequentialist and deontological theoretical intuitions, which enable us to make important moral distinctions and grasp objective moral facts, are produced by the exercise of autonomous moral reasoning and the process of cultural evolution. My conclusion will be that Greene is not justified in his claim that deontology is normatively inferior to consequentialism.

|Abstract
= 1744 veces | PDF
= 198 veces| | HTML
= 18 veces|

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Caner Turan, Tulane University

is a doctoral candidate in the department of philosophy at Tulane University, writing his dissertation on Kantian constitutivism. He is the author of “Necessary Constructivism in Kant’s Moral Theory.” In The Philosophy of Kant, Ricardo Gutiérrez Aguilar Ed. (Nova, 2019) and “Are Ambitious Evolutionary Debunking Arguments Self-Refuting?” (Southwest Philosophical Studies, forthcoming).

References

Arrhenius, G. (2000). An impossibility theorem for welfarist axiologies. Economics and Philosophy, 16(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100000249

Ayala, F. J. (2010). The difference of being human: morality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(S2), 9015–9022. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914616107

Ayala, F. J. (2016). Evolution, explanation, ethics and aesthetics: towards a philosophy of biology. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803693-8.00013-X

Burkart, J. M., Brügger, R. K. & van Schaik, C. P. (2018). Evolutionary origins of morality: insights from non-human primates. Frontiers in Sociology, 3(17), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00017

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L. & Feldman, M. W. (1981). Cultural transmission and evolution. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691209357

Chatterjee, A. (2014). The aesthetic brain: how we evolved to desire beauty and enjoy art. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199811809.001.0001

Darwin, C. (1981). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.70891

Dawkins, R. (2006). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.

Flack, J. C. & de Waal F. B. M. (2000). Any animal whatever: darwinian building blocks of morality in monkeys and apes. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7(1–2), 1–29.

Foot, P. (1967). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review, 1(5), 5–15.

Freeman, D., Graham, J. & Emlen, J. (1993). Developmental stability in plants: symmetries, stress and epigenesis. Genetica, 89(1), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02424508

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. W. W. Norton & Company.

Gould, S. J. & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation–a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0094837300004310

Greene, J. (2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol. 3, (pp. 35–79). MIT Press.

Greene, J., Cushman, F. A., Stewart, L. E., Lowenberg, K., Nystrom, L. E. & Cohen J. D. (2009). Pushing moral buttons: the interaction between personal force and intention in moral judgment. Cognition, 111(3), 364–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.02.001

Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes. The Penguin Press.

Greene, J. & Haidt, J. (2002). How des moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(12), 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)02011-9

Greene, J., Sommerville, B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M. & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An FMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.4.814

Huemer, M. (2008). Revisionary intuitionism. Social Philosophy and Policy, 25(1), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026505250808014X

Huemer, M. (2013). Transitivity, comparative value, and the methods of ethics. Ethics, 123(2), 318–345. https://doi.org/10.1086/668905

Jasienska, G., Lipson, S. F., Ellison, P. T., Thune, I. & Ziomkiewicz, A. (2006). Symmetrical women have higher potential fertility. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27(5), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2006.01.001

Jones, A. H. M. (1948). Constantine and the conversion of Europe. Hodder & Stoughton.

Joyce, R. (2006). The evolution of morality. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2880.001.0001

Kahane, G. (2011). Evolutionary debunking arguments. Noûs, 45(1), 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2010.00770.x

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kant, I. (1998). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. (M. Gregor, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809590

Nagel, T. (1979). Ethics without biology. Mortal Questions (pp. 142–146). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107341050.012

Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and persons. Clarendon Press.

Parker, S. T. & Gibson, K. R. (1990). “Language” and intelligence in monkeys and apes: comparative developmental perspectives. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511665486

Persson, I. (2004). The root of the repugnant conclusion and its rebuttal. In J. Ryberg & T. Tännsjö (Eds.), The repugnant conclusion: essays on population ethics (pp. 187–199). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-2473-3_10

Prinz, J. J. (2008). Is morality innate? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology. Volume 1: The evolution of morality: adaptations and innateness (pp. 367–406). MIT Press.

Railton, P. (2014). The affective dog and its rational tale: intuition and attunement. Ethics, 124(4), 813–859. https://doi.org/10.1086/675876

Ruse, M. (2010). The biological sciences can act as a ground for ethics. In F. J. Ayala & R. Arp (Eds.), Contemporary debates in philosophy of biology (pp. 97–315). Wiley-Blackwell.

Sensen, O. (2014). Universalizing as a moral demand. Estudos Kantianos, 2(1), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.36311/2318-0501/2014.v2n1.3815

Shafer-Landau, R. (2003). Moral realism: a defence. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0199259755.001.0001

Singer, P. (1972). Famine, affluence, and morality. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1(3), 229–243.

Slingerland, E. (2014). Trying not to try: the art and science of spontaneity. Crown Publishers.

Street, S. (2006). A darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philosophical Studies, 127(1), 109–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-005-1726-6

Tännsjö, T. (2002). Why we ought to accept the repugnant conclusion. Utilitas, 14(3), 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820800003642

Temkin, L. S. (1987). Intransitivity and the mere addition paradox. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16(2), 138–187.

Temkin, L. S. (2012). Rethinking the good: moral ideals and the nature of practical reasoning. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199759446.001.0001

Thomson, J. J. (1976). Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. The Monist, 59(2), 204–217. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197659224

de Waal, F. B. M. (2014). Natural normativity: the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ of animal behavior. Behaviour, 151(2–3), 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003146

Downloads

Published

2022-01-31

How to Cite

Turan, C. (2022). Does autonomous moral reasoning favor consequentialism?. Estudios De Filosofía, (65), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ef.345775

Issue

Section

Original or Research articles

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.