Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-7j4dq Total loading time: 1.297 Render date: 2022-09-28T17:15:21.754Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Defending optimistic rationalism: A reply to commentators

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 September 2019

Joshua May*
Department of Philosophy, University of Alabama, Birmingham, AL 35294-1260. joshmay@uab.edu


In response, I elaborate on my conception of moral reasoning, as well as clarify the structure of debunking arguments and how my cautious optimism is only of the “glass half full” sort. I also explain how rationalism can capture insights purportedly only explained by sentimentalist and Humean views. The reply concludes by clarifying and admitting some limits of the book's scope.

Author's Response
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.)


Cameron, C. D., Payne, B. K., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Scheffer, J. A. & Inzlicht, M. (2017) Implicit moral evaluations: A multinomial modeling approach. Cognition 158:224–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1992) Cognitive adaptions for social exchange. In: The adapted mind, ed. Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J., pp. 163228. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cummins, D. D. (1996) Evidence of deontic reasoning in 3- and 4-year-old children. Memory and Cognition 24(6):823–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demaree-Cotton, J. (2016) Do framing effects make moral intuitions unreliable? Philosophical Psychology 29(1):122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doris, J. M. (2015) Talking to our selves: Reflection, ignorance, and agency. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederick, S. (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19:2542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, G. (2008) Gut feelings: The intelligence of the unconscious. Penguin.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. (2012) Scientific thinking in young children: Theoretical advances, empirical research, and policy implications. Science 337(6102):1623–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P. & Ditto, P. H. (2013) Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 47, ed. Devine, P. & Plant, A., pp. 55130. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J. & Nosek, B. A. (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5):1029–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greene, J. D. (2013) Moral tribes: Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. Penguin.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. (2014) Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why cognitive (neuro)science matters for ethics. Ethics 124(4):695726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawthorne, J. & Stanley, J. (2008) Knowledge and action. Journal of Philosophy 105(10):571–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horne, Z. & Livengood, J. (2017) Ordering effects, updating effects, and the specter of global skepticism. Synthese 194(4):1189–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joyce, R. (2006) The evolution of morality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change 2(6): 732–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A. C., Earp, B. D., Farias, M. & Savulescu, J. (2015) “Utilitarian” judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition 134(C):193209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, C. M. (1996a) Creating the kingdom of ends. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühberger, A. (1998) The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes 75(1):2355.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, V. & May, J. (2019) How to debunk moral beliefs. In: Methodology and moral philosophy, ed. Suikkanen, J. & Kauppinen, A., pp. 2548. Routledge.Google Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 108(3):480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Locke, D. (2015) Practical certainty. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90(1):7295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madva, A. (2016) A Plea for anti-anti-individualism: How oversimple psychology misleads social policy. Ergo 3(27):701728.Google Scholar
Manne, K. (2017) Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, C. (2018) Compassionate moral realism. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, J. (2013b) Skeptical hypotheses and moral skepticism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 43(3):341–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, J. (2018) Regard for reason in the moral mind. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mikhail, J. (2011) Elements of moral cognition. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, S. (2004) Sentimental rules: On the natural foundations of moral judgment. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nichols, S., Kumar, S., Lopez, T., Ayars, A. & Chan, H. Y. (2016) Rational learners and moral rules. Mind and Language 31(5):530–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prinz, J. (2007) The emotional construction of morals. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Railton, P. (2017) Moral learning: Conceptual foundations and normative relevance. Cognition 167:172–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rini, R. A. (2016) Debunking debunking: A regress challenge for psychological threats to moral judgment. Philosophical Studies 173(3):675–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scanlon, T. (1998) What we owe to each other. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Singer, P. (2005) Ethics and intuitions. The Journal of Ethics 9:331–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summers, J. S. (2017) Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Some benefits of rationalization. Philosophical Explorations 20(suppl. 1):2136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, K. S. & Oppenheimer, D. M. (2016) Investigating an alternate form of the cognitive reflection test. Judgment and Decision Making 11(1): 99113.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Q., Yan, L., Luo, J., Li, A., Zhang, Y., Tian, X. & Zhang, D. (2013) Temporal dynamics of disgust and morality. PLOS ONE 8:e65094.Google ScholarPubMed
Zheng, R. (2018) What is my role in changing the system? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21(4):869–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, A. (2010) Moral epistemology. Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Linked content

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Defending optimistic rationalism: A reply to commentators
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Defending optimistic rationalism: A reply to commentators
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Defending optimistic rationalism: A reply to commentators
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *