Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T19:33:35.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ego function of morality and developing tensions that are “within”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2013

Philippe Rochat  and
Erin Robbins
Philippe Rochat
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322. psypr@emory.eduhttp://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/eerobbi@emory.edu
Erin Robbins
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322. psypr@emory.eduhttp://www.psychology.emory.edu/cognition/rochat/lab/eerobbi@emory.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We applaud Baumard et al.'s mutualistic account of morality but detect circularity in their articulation of how morality emerged. Contra the authors, we propose that mutualism might account for a sensitivity to convention (the ways things are done within a group) rather than for a sense of fairness. An ontogenetic perspective better captures the complexity of what it means to be moral.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 98 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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

Frimer, J. A. & Walker, L. A. (2008) Towards a new paradigm of moral personhood. Journal of Moral Education 37:333–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. (2007) The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316(5827):998–1002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamlin, J. K., Wynn, K. & Bloom, P. (2007) Social evaluation by preverbal infants. Nature 450(7169):557–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hook, J. G. & Cook, T. D. (1979) Equity theory and the cognitive ability of children. Psychological Bulletin 86:429–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrink, K., Bloom, P. & Santos, L. R. (2010) Children's and adults' judgments of equitable resource distributions. Developmental Science 13(1):37–45.Google Scholar
Prinz, J. J. (2007) “Is Morality Innate?” In: Moral psychology, vol. 1: Evolution of morals, ed. Sinnott-Armstrong, W.. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Robbins, E. & Rochat, P. (2011) Emerging signs of strong reciprocity in human ontogeny. Frontiers in Psychology 2:353. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taylor, C. (1989) The sources of the self: The making of the modern identity. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thomsen, L., Frankenhuis, W. E., Ingold-Smith, M. & Carey, S. (2011) Big and mighty: Preverbal infants mentally represent social dominance. Science 332:477–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar