Synthese 197 (4):1429-1446 (2020)

Abstract
Originally identified by Hume, the validity of is–ought inference is much debated in the meta-ethics literature. Our work shows that inference from is to ought typically proceeds from contextualised, value-laden causal utility conditional, bridging into a deontic conclusion. Such conditional statements tell us what actions are needed to achieve or avoid consequences that are good or bad. Psychological research has established that people generally reason fluently and easily with utility conditionals. Our own research also has shown that people’s reasoning from is to ought is pragmatically sensitive and adapted to achieving the individual’s goals. But how do we acquire the necessary deontic rules? In this paper, we provide a rationale for this facility linked to Evans’s framework of dual mind rationality. People have an old mind which derives its rationality by repeating what has worked in the past, mostly by experiential learning. New mind rationality, in contrast, is evolutionarily recent, uniquely developed in humans, and draws on our ability to mentally simulate hypothetical events removed in time and place. We contend that the new mind achieves its goals by inducing and applying deontic rules and that a mechanism of deontic introduction evolved for this purpose.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-018-02041-4
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,214
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Modularity of Mind.Robert Cummins & Jerry Fodor - 1983 - Philosophical Review 94 (1):101.
The Concept of Mind.Gilbert Ryle - 1949 - Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 141:125-126.
The Concept of Mind.Gilbert Ryle - 1950 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 1 (4):328-332.

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

1922: Dziga Vertov.Dan Geva - 2021 - In A Philosophical History of Documentary, 1895-1959. Cham: Palmgrave Macmillan. pp. 93-100.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Deontic Norms, Deontic Reasoning, and Deontic Conditionals.Sieghard Beller - 2008 - Thinking and Reasoning 14 (4):305 – 341.
Two Minds Rationality.Jonathan St B. T. Evans - 2014 - Thinking and Reasoning 20 (2):129-146.
Adaptive Domains of Deontic Reasoning.Laurence Fiddick - 2006 - Philosophical Explorations 9 (1):105 – 116.
Following the Rules: Practical Reasoning and Deontic Constraint.Joseph Heath - 2008 - Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Deontic Modals and Probability: One Theory to Rule Them All?Fabrizio Cariani - forthcoming - In Nate Charlow & Matthew Chrisman (eds.), Deontic Modality. Oxford University Press.
Why Exactly is Commitment Important for Rationality?S. E. N. Amartya - 2005 - Economics and Philosophy 21 (1):5-14.
Rationality as Optimal Choice Versus Rationality as Valid Inference.Alex Viskovatoff - 2001 - Journal of Economic Methodology 8 (2):313-337.
Why Exactly is Commitment Important for Rationality?Amartya Sen - 2005 - Economics and Philosophy 21 (1):5-14.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-12-05

Total views
32 ( #356,710 of 2,507,555 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,983 of 2,507,555 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes