Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T15:46:09.794Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Externalization is common to all value judgments, and norms are motivating because of their intersubjective grounding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2018

Carme Isern-Mas  and
Antoni Gomila
Carme Isern-Mas
Affiliation:
Human Evolution and Cognition Group (EvoCog), University of the Balearic Islands (UIB), Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Physics and Complex Systems (IFISC), Associated Unit to Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Campus Carretera Valldemossa, 07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Isernmas.carme@gmail.comtoni.gomila@uib.cathttp://evocog.org/carme-isern/https://antonigomila.wordpress.com/
Antoni Gomila
Affiliation:
Human Evolution and Cognition Group (EvoCog), University of the Balearic Islands (UIB), Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Physics and Complex Systems (IFISC), Associated Unit to Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Campus Carretera Valldemossa, 07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain. Isernmas.carme@gmail.comtoni.gomila@uib.cathttp://evocog.org/carme-isern/https://antonigomila.wordpress.com/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that externalization is a feature not only of moral judgment, but also of value judgment in general. It follows that the evolution of externalization was not specific to moral judgment. Second, we argue that value judgments cannot be decoupled from the level of motivations and preferences, which, in the moral case, rely on intersubjective bonds and claims.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e104
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Darwall, S. (2006) The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ginsborg, H. (2014) Kant's aesthetics and teleology. In: The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2014 Online edition, ed. Zalta, E. N.. Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/.Google Scholar
Gould, S. J. & Lewontin, R. C. (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 205(1161):581–98. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1979.0086.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1790/1987) Kritique der Urtailskraft [Critique of judgment], ed. Pluhar, W.. Hackett. (Original work published in 1790; Hackett English edition in 1987).Google Scholar
Zangwill, N. (2014) Aesthetic judgment. In: The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Fall 2014 Online edition, ed. Zalta, E. N.. Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetic-judgment/.Google Scholar