Disassociation Intuitions

Southwest Philosophy Review 34 (1):85-92 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We should disassociate ourselves from wrongdoing. If Hobby Lobby is against LGBTQ rights, we shouldn’t shop there. If Old Navy sources their clothing from sweatshops, we shouldn’t buy them. If animals are treated terribly in factory farms, we shouldn’t eat the meat, eggs, and dairy products that come from them. Let’s call these disassociation intuitions. What explains the existence and force of disassociation intuitions? And based on that explanation, are they intuitions worth taking seriously? In other words, depending on the etiology of these intuitions, should we accept that you ought to dissociate yourself from wrongdoing? Our aim here is to outline a hypothesis that would, if true, answer the first question, and which suggests a way to vindicate some disassociation intuitions as morally correct.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-02-22

Downloads
782 (#35,337)

6 months
146 (#37,570)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Bob Fischer
Texas State University
Isaac Wiegman
Texas State University

Citations of this work

Pleasures of the Flesh.Jasmine Gunkel - 2023 - Social Theory and Practice 49 (1):79-103.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Arguments for Consuming Animal Products.Bob Fischer - 2018 - In Anne Barnhill, Mark Budolfson & Tyler Doggett, The Oxford Handbook of Food Ethics. Oxford University Press. pp. 241-266.
Moral Disgust and The Tribal Instincts Hypothesis.Daniel Kelly - 2013 - In Kim Sterelny, Richard Joyce, Brett Calcott & Ben Fraser, Cooperation and its Evolution. MIT Press.

Add more references