Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-t6st2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-30T03:25:12.263Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do we really externalize or objectivize moral demands?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2018

Stephen Stich
Stephen Stich*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901. stich@philosophy.rutgers.edu http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~stich/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Stanford's goal is to explain the uniquely human tendency to externalize or objectify “distinctively moral” demands, norms, and obligations. I maintain that there is no clear phenomenon to explain. Stanford's account of which norms are distinctively moral relies on Turiel's problematic work. Stanford's justification of the claim that we “objectify” moral demands ignores recent studies indicating that often we do not.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e113
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

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.Google Scholar
Beebe, J. R. (2015) The empirical study of folk metaethics. Etyka 50/2015. (Online article). Available at: http://etyka.uw.edu.pl/en/archive/empirical-study-folk-metaethics/Google Scholar
Beebe, J. R. & Sackris, D. (2016) Moral objectivism across the lifespan. Philosophical Psychology 29(6):912–29.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
Kelly, D., Stich, S., Haley, K. J., Eng, S. J. & Fessler, D. M. T. (2007) Harm, affect, and the moral/conventional distinction. Mind and Language 22:117–31. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199733477.003.0013.Google Scholar
Kumar, V. (2015) Moral judgment as a natural kind. Philosophical Studies 172:2887–910. doi: 10.1007/s11098-015-0448-7.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. (1957) What morality is not. Philosophy 32:325–35.Google Scholar
Quintelier, K., De Smet, D. & Fessler, D. (2014) Agent versus appraiser moral relativism: An exploratory study. In: Advances in experimental moral psychology, ed. Sarkissian, H. & Wright, J., pp. 209–30. Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkissian, H. (2016) Aspects of folk morality: Objectivism and relativism. In: A companion to experimental philosophy, ed. Sytsma, J. & Buckwalter, W., pp. 212–24. Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sarkissian, H., Park, J., Tien, D., Wright, J. C. & Knobe, J. (2011) Folk moral relativism. Mind and Language 26:482–505.Google Scholar
Stich, S. (forthcoming) The quest for the boundaries of morality. In: The Routledge handbook of moral epistemology, ed. Jones, K., Timmons, M. & Zimmerman, A.. Routledge.Google Scholar