Nora Heinzelmann
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München
Benedikt T. A. Höltgen
Ludwig Maximilians Universität, München
The so-called “conciliatory” norm in epistemology and meta-ethics requires that an agent, upon encountering peer disagreement with her judgment, lower her confidence about that judgment. But whether agents actually abide by this norm is unclear. Although confidence is excessively researched in the empirical sciences, possible effects of disagreement on confidence have been understudied. Here, we target this lacuna, reporting a study that measured confidence about moral beliefs before and after exposure to moral discourse about a controversial issue. Our findings indicate that participants do not abide by the conciliatory norm. Neither do they conform to a rival “steadfast” norm that demands their confidence to remain the same. Instead, moral discourse seems to boost confidence. Interestingly, we also find a confidence boost for factual beliefs, and a correlation between the extremity of moral views and confidence. One possible explanation of our findings is that when engaging in moral discourse participants become more extreme in their opinions, which leads them to become more confident about them, or vice versa: they become more confident and in turn more extreme. Although our work provides initial evidence for the former mechanism, further research is needed for a better understanding of confidence and moral discourse.
Keywords Moral discourse  confidence  moral psychology  experimental philosophy  judgment  genetic technology  education
Categories (categorize this paper)
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Thinking, Fast and Slow.Daniel Kahneman - 2011 - New York: New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Bayesian Epistemology.Luc Bovens & Stephan Hartmann - 2003 - Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.Thomas Kelly - 2010 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. Oxford University Press. pp. 183--217.
Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.Dan Sperber - 2011 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34 (2):57.

View all 19 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Breakdown of Moral Judgment.Eric Campbell - 2014 - Ethics 124 (3):447-480.
“Imposing Values on Others”.Clayton Morgareidge - 2000 - Teaching Philosophy 23 (2):157-167.
Moral Realism and Moral Judgments.Frederik Kaufman - 1992 - Erkenntnis 36 (1):103 - 112.
The Necessity of Moral Reasoning.Leland Saunders - 2018 - Journal of Value Inquiry 52 (1):37-57.
Clinical Judgment, Moral Anxiety, and the Limits of Psychiatry.Bradley Murray - 2017 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (4):495-501.
Improving Moral Judgments: Philosophical Considerations.Annemarie Kalis - 2010 - Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 30 (2):94-108.
What is Moral Reasoning?Leland F. Saunders - 2013 - Philosophical Psychology (1):1-20.
Autonomy, Understanding, and Moral Disagreement.C. Thi Nguyen - 2010 - Philosophical Topics 38 (2):111-129.
The Logical Respectability of Moral Judgements.Neil Cooper - 1989 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 32 (2):195-212.


Added to PP index

Total views
281 ( #38,797 of 2,518,137 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
109 ( #6,395 of 2,518,137 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes