Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:39:42.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A single cognitive heuristic process meets the complexity of domain-specific moral heuristics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2014

Veljko Dubljević  and
Eric Racine
Veljko Dubljević
Affiliation:
Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM), Montréal, QC H2W lR7, Canada. [email protected]@ircm.qc.cahttp://www.ircm.qc.ca/neuroethics/en
Eric Racine
Affiliation:
Neuroethics Research Unit, Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal (IRCM), Montréal, QC H2W lR7, Canada. [email protected]@ircm.qc.cahttp://www.ircm.qc.ca/neuroethics/en
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The inherence heuristic (a) offers modest insights into the complex nature of both the is–ought tension in moral reasoning and moral reasoning per se, and (b) does not reflect the complexity of domain-specific moral heuristics. Formal and general in nature, we contextualize the process described as “inherence heuristic” in a web of domain-specific heuristics (e.g., agent specific; action specific; consequences specific).

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 5 , October 2014 , pp. 487 - 488
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Aristotle (1890) The ethics of Aristotle: The Nichomachean ethics, trans. Chase, D. P.. Scott, W..Google Scholar
Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J. (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th ed. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Callahan, D. (1996) Can nature serve as a moral guide? Hastings Center Report 26(6):21–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewey, J. (1922) Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. Holt.Google Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2008) Moral intuition=fast and frugal heuristics? In: Moral psychology, vol. 2: The cognitive science of morality – Intuition and diversity, ed. Sinnott-Armstrong, W., pp. 1–26. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hume, D. (1739/1975) Treatise of human nature. Clarendon Press. (Original work published in 1739.)Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Frederick, S. (2002) Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment. In: Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment, ed. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D. & Kahneman, D., pp. 49–81. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1785/1993) Grounding for the metaphysics of morals, 3rd edition, trans. Ellington, J. W.. Hackett. (Original work published in 1785.)Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1903/1971) Principia ethica. Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1903.)Google Scholar
Racine, E. (2008) Which naturalism for bioethics? A defense of moderate (pragmatic) naturalism. Bioethics 22(2):92–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shah, A. K. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2008) Heuristics made easy: An effort-reduction framework. Psychological Bulletin 134(2):207–22.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. (1874/1981) Methods of ethics, 7th edition. Hackett. (Original work published in 1874.)Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2005) Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:531–73.Google Scholar