Is evidence from social psychology and neuroscience relevant to philosophical debates in normative ethics?

Annali di Studi Religiosi 14:145-165 (2014)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This article presents some considerations concerning the relevance of empirical research from neuroscience and social psychology for philosophical debates in normative ethics. While many authors hold that there are findings and theories from those fields that are relevant to normative ethics, it often remains unclear precisely how this relevance relation is to be construed and spelled out. The article critically discusses various proposals which have recently been made in this regard by philosophers, psychologists, and neuroscientists.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Philosophical Personality Argument.Adam Feltz & Edward T. Cokely - 2012 - Philosophical Studies 161 (2):227-246.
Philosophical issues in neuroimaging.Colin Klein - 2010 - Philosophy Compass 5 (2):186-198.
Computationalism in the Philosophy of Mind.Gualtiero Piccinini - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (3):515-532.
Defending normative naturalism: A reply to Ellen Klein.Robert N. McCauley - 1992 - Philosophical Psychology 5 (3):299 – 305.
Altruism and the Experimental Data on Helping Behavior.Stephanie Beardman - 2012 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):547 - 561.
Does empirical moral psychology rest on a mistake?Patrick Clipsham - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (2):215-233.

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-05-06

Downloads
533 (#32,499)

6 months
62 (#67,812)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Boris Rähme
Fondazione Bruno Kessler

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references