Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A “cohesive moral community” is already patrolling behavioral science 1

  • George Ainslie (a1)

Abstract

Authors of non-liberal proposals experience more collegial objections than others do. These objections are often couched as criticism of determinism, reductionism, or methodological individualism, but from a scientific viewpoint such criticism could be easily answered. Underneath it is a wish to harness scientific belief in service of positive social values, at the cost of reducing objectivity.

Copyright

Footnotes

Hide All
1.

This material is the result of work supported with resources and the use of facilities at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Coatesville, PA, and is thus not subject to copyright in the United States. The opinions expressed are not those of the Department of Veterans Affairs or of the U.S. Government.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Ainslie, G. (2013) Cold climates demand more intertemporal self-control than warm climates. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(5):481–82. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13000022.
Allik, J. & Realo, A. (2013) How is freedom distributed across the earth? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(5):482–83.
Atran, S. & Norenzayan, A. (2004) Religion's evolutionary landscape: Counterintuition, commitment, compassion, communion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(6):713–70.
Haidt, J. (2012) The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Hammersley, R. & Reid, M. (2002) Why the pervasive addiction myth is still believed. Addiction Research and Theory 10:730.
Hayden, E. C. (2013) Taboo genetics. Nature 502:2628.
Heyman, G. M. (2009) Addiction: A disorder of choice. Harvard University Press.
Laland, K. N. & Brown, G. (2011) Sense and nonsense: Evolutionary perspectives on human behaviour, 2nd edition. Oxford University Press.
Marsh, A. A., Stoycos, S. A., Brethel-Haurwitz, K. M., Robinson, P., VanMeter, J. W. & Cardinale, E. M. (2014) Neural and cognitive characteristics of extraordinary altruists. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 111(42):15036–41.
Miller, W. R. (2003) Comments on Ainslie and Monterosso. In: Choice, behavioural economics, and addiction, ed. Vuchinich, R. & Heather, N., pp. 6266. Pergamon.
Müller, C. P. & Schumann, G. (2011) Drugs as instruments: A new framework for non-addictive psychoactive drug use. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(6):293310.
Nell, V. (2006) Cruelty's rewards: The gratifications of perpetrators and spectators. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29(3):211–57.
Roizen, R. (1987) The great controlled-drinking controversy. In: Recent developments in alcoholism, vol. 5, ed. Galanter, M., pp. 245–87. Plenum Press.
Ross, D. (2014) Philosophy of economics. Palgrave.
Sawyer, R. K. (2002) Emergence in psychology: Lessons from the history of non-reductionist science. Human Development 45:228.
Segerstråle, U. (2000) Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond. Oxford University Press.
Udehn, L. (2001) Methodological individualism. Routledge.
Van de Vliert, E. (2013) Climato-economic habitats support patterns of human needs, stresses, and freedoms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(5):465521; discussion 480–515.
Wilson, E. O. (1975) Sociobiology. Harvard University Press.
Wu, K. C.-C. (2011) Governing drug use through neurobiological subject construction: The sad loss of the sociocultural. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(6):327–28.

A “cohesive moral community” is already patrolling behavioral science 1

  • George Ainslie (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed