Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-rv6c5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-04T23:00:35.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moral externalization and normativity: The errors of our ways

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2018

P. Kyle Stanford
P. Kyle Stanford*
Affiliation:
Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697. stanford@uci.edu http://www.lps.uci.edu/lps_bios/stanford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I respond to the many thoughtful suggestions and concerns of my commentators on a wide variety of questions. These include whether moral norms form a unified category, whether they have a distinctive phenomenology, and/or whether moral normativity is a cultural construct; whether moral externalization is necessary for correlated interaction or human prosociality; precisely how such externalization generates correlated interactions among prosocial agents; and whether there are any convincing alternative explanations for it.

Information

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e119
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Balliet, D., Mulder, L. B. & Van Lange, P. A. (2011) Reward, punishment, and cooperation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 137:594–615.Google Scholar
Baumard, N., André, J.-B. & Sperber, D. (2013) A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36:59–122.Google Scholar
Beebe, J. R. (2014) How different kinds of disagreement impact folk metaethical judgments. In: Advances in experimental moral psychology, ed. Sarkissian, H. & Wright, J., pp. 167–87. Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, S. (2006) The second-person standpoint: Morality, respect, and accountability. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Edgerton, R. (1992). Sick societies. Free Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, G. P. & Darley, J. M. (2008) The psychology of meta-ethics: Exploring objectivism. Cognition 106:1339–66. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.06.007.Google Scholar
Goodwin, G. P. & Darley, J. M. (2012) Why are some moral beliefs perceived to be more objective than others? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48(1):250–56. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.006.Google Scholar
Joyce, R. (2006) The evolution of morality. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kelly, D. (2011) Yuck! The nature and moral significance of disgust. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sarkissian, H., Park, J., Tien, D., Wright, J. C. & Knobe, J. (2011) Folk moral relativism. Mind and Language 26:482–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W. & Sargis, E. G. (2005) Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8:895–917.Google Scholar
Weisel, O. & Böhm, R. (2015) “Ingroup love” and “outgroup hate” in intergroup conflict between natural groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 60:110–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar