Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:40:38.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moral reasoning performance determines epistemic peerdom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2019

William H. B. McAuliffe Open the ORCID record for William H. B. McAuliffe [Opens in a new window]  and
Michael E. McCullough Open the ORCID record for Michael E. McCullough [Opens in a new window]
William H. B. McAuliffe
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146. [email protected]://williamhbmcauliffe.com/[email protected]://local.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/
Michael E. McCullough
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146. [email protected]://williamhbmcauliffe.com/[email protected]://local.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We offer a friendly criticism of May's fantastic book on moral reasoning: It is overly charitable to the argument that moral disagreement undermines moral knowledge. To highlight the role that reasoning quality plays in moral judgments, we review literature that he did not mention showing that individual differences in intelligence and cognitive reflection explain much of moral disagreement. The burden is on skeptics of moral knowledge to show that moral disagreement arises from non-rational origins.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 42 , 2019 , e161
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aharoni, E., Sinnott-Armstrong, W. & Kiehl, K. A. (2012) Can psychopathic offenders discern moral wrongs? A new look at the moral/conventional distinction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 121(2):484–97.Google Scholar
Bekkers, R. & Wiepking, P. (2011) Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving, part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review 2(3):337–65.Google Scholar
Brandt, M. J. & Crawford, J. T. (2016) Answering unresolved questions about the relationship between cognitive ability and prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science 7(8): 884–92.Google Scholar
Comunian, A. L. & Gielen, U. P. (1995) Moral reasoning and prosocial action in Italian culture. The Journal of Social Psychology 135(6): 699–706.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. & Brandt, M. J. (2019) Who is prejudiced, and toward whom? Big five traits and inclusive generalized prejudice. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6vqwk.Google Scholar
Davidson, P., Turiel, E. & Black, A. (1983) The effect of stimulus familiarity on the use of criteria and justifications in children's social reasoning. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 1(1):49–65.Google Scholar
Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D. & Gale, C. R. (2008) Bright children become enlightened adults. Psychological Science 19(1):1–6.Google Scholar
Ermer, E. & Kiehl, K. A. (2010) Psychopaths are impaired in social exchange and precautionary reasoning. Psychological Science 21(10):1399–1405.Google Scholar
Gibbs, J. C. (2013) Moral development and reality: Beyond the theories of Kohlberg, Hoffman, and Haidt. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holyoak, K. J. & Powell, D. (2016) Deontological coherence: A framework for commonsense moral reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 142(11):1179–1203.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. (2017) Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology 38(2):167–208.Google Scholar
Jussim, L. (2017) Précis of Social Perception and Social Reality: Why Accuracy Dominates Bias and Self-Fulfilling Prophecy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1–65.Google Scholar
Krebs, D. L. & Denton, K. (2005) Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: A critical evaluation of Kohlberg's model. Psychological Review 112(3):629–49.Google Scholar
Landy, J. F. (2016) Representations of moral violations: Category members and associated features. Judgment and Decision Making 11(5): 496–508.Google Scholar
Lawrence, J. A. (1987) Verbal processing of the Defining Issues Test by principled and non-principled moral reasoners. Journal of Moral Education 16(2):117–30.Google Scholar
Lepore, J. (2018) These truths: A history of the United States. Norton.Google Scholar
Lourenço, O. (2003) Making sense of Turiel's dispute with Kohlberg: The case of the child's moral competence. New Ideas in Psychology 21(1):43–68.Google Scholar
Marshall, J., Watts, A. L., Frankel, E. L. & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017) An examination of psychopathy's relationship with two indices of moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences 113:240–45.Google Scholar
May, J. (2018) Regard for reason in the moral mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCullough, M. E. (forthcoming) Why we give a damn. Basic Books.Google Scholar
O'Kane, A., Fawcett, D. & Blackburn, R. (1996) Psychopathy and moral reasoning: Comparison of two classifications. Personality and Individual Differences 20:505–14.Google Scholar
Oliner, S. & Oliner, P. (1988) The altruistic personality: Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. Free Press.Google Scholar
Perales, F. (2018) The cognitive roots of prejudice towards same-sex couples: An analysis of an Australian national sample. Intelligence 68:117–27.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1932/1965) The moral judgement of the child, trans. Gabain, M.. Free Press/Harcourt. (Original work published in 1932.)Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2011a) The better angels of our nature: The decline of violence in history and its causes. Penguin.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2018) Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress. Viking.Google Scholar
Rest, J. R., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. & Thoma, S. (1999) Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Royzman, E. B., Landy, J. F. & Goodwin, G. P. (2014b) Are good reasoners more incest-friendly? Trait cognitive reflection predicts selective moralization in a sample of American adults. Judgment and Decision Making 9(3):176–90.Google Scholar
Royzman, E. B., Landy, J. F. & Leeman, R. F. (2015b) Are thoughtful people more utilitarian? CRT as a unique predictor of moral minimalism in the dilemmatic context. Cognitive Science 39(2):325–52.Google Scholar
Shermer, M. (2015) The moral arc: How science and reason lead humanity toward truth, justice, and freedom. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Sousa, P. & Piazza, J. (2014) Harmful transgressions qua moral transgressions: A deflationary view. Thinking and Reasoning 20(1):99–128.Google Scholar
Stams, G. J., Brugman, D., Deković, M., Van Rosmalen, L., Van Der Laan, P. & Gibbs, J. C. (2006) The moral judgment of juvenile delinquents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34(5):692–708.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F. & Toplak, M. E. (2013) Myside bias, rational thinking, and intelligence. Current Directions in Psychological Science 22(4):259–64.Google Scholar
Van Langen, M. A., Wissink, I. B., Van Vugt, E. S., Van der Stouwe, T. & Stams, G. J. J. M. (2014) The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior 19(2):179–89.Google Scholar
Van Vugt, E., Gibbs, J., Stams, G. J., Bijleveld, C., Hendriks, J. & van der Laan, P. (2011) Moral development and recidivism: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 55(8):1234–50.Google Scholar
Walker, L. J., Frimer, J. A. & Dunlop, W. L. (2010) Varieties of moral personality: Beyond the banality of heroism. Journal of Personality 78(3):907–42.Google Scholar