Emotion Review 3 (3):284-285 (2011)

Abstract
Recent work proclaims a dominant role for automatic, intuitive, and emotional processes in producing ordinary moral judgment, despite the fact that we have little direct evidence about moral judgment “in the wild.” Indirect support comes via an assumption of dual-process theory: that conscious, reasoning processes are resource intensive. We argue that reasoning that employs consciously available moral rules undermines this assumption, but this has not been appreciated because of a failure to distinguish between explanation and justification. We conclude that it remains unclear what sorts of cognitive processes are dominant in ordinary moral judgments.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1177/1754073911402376
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: 69,959
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

How Does Moral Judgment Work?Joshua Greene & Jonathan Haidt - 2002 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6 (12):517-523.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Emotion and Morality: A Tasting Menu.Joshua D. Greene - 2011 - Emotion Review 3 (3):227-229.
Moral Motivation as a Dynamic Developmental Process: Toward an Integrative Synthesis.Ulas Kaplan - 2017 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 47 (2):195-221.

View all 11 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2011-12-23

Total views
70 ( #163,958 of 2,504,601 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,254 of 2,504,601 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes