Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:36:11.424Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The many faces of obligation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2020

Michael Tomasello Open the ORCID record for Michael Tomasello [Opens in a new window]
Michael Tomasello*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, 04103Leipzig, Germany Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University, Durham, NC27708-0086michael.tomasello@duke.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

My response to the commentaries focuses on four issues: (1) the diversity both within and between cultures of the many different faces of obligation; (2) the possible evolutionary roots of the sense of obligation, including possible sources that I did not consider; (3) the possible ontogenetic roots of the sense of obligation, including especially children's understanding of groups from a third-party perspective (rather than through participation, as in my account); and (4) the relation between philosophical accounts of normative phenomena in general – which are pitched as not totally empirical – and empirical accounts such as my own. I have tried to distinguish comments that argue for extensions of the theory from those that represent genuine disagreement.

Type
Author's Response
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e89
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Bratman, M. E. (2014) Shared agency: A planning theory of acting together. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K. (2002) Altruistic cooperation during foraging by the Ache, and the evolved human predisposition to cooperate. Human Nature 13(1):105–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kachel, U. & Tomasello, M. (2019) 3- and 5-year-old children's adherence to explicit and implicit joint commitments. Developmental Psychology 55(1):80–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Korsgaard, C. (1996) The sources of normativity. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, J., Mermin-Bunnell, N., Gollwitzer, A., Shinomiya, M., Retelsdorf, J. & Bloom, P. (in preparation) The developmental foundations of relational obligations across 5 societies.Google Scholar
Nagel, T. (1970b) The possibility of altruism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pettit, P. (2018a) The birth of ethics: Reconstructing the role and nature of morality. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siposova, B., Tomasello, M. & Carpenter, M. (2018) Communicative eye contact signals a commitment to cooperate for young children. Cognition 179:192–201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2016a) A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M., Melis, A. P., Tennie, C., Wyman, E. & Herrmann, E. (2012) Two key steps in the evolution of human cooperation: The interdependence hypothesis. Current Anthropology 53(6):673–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar