Article contents
Valuation mechanisms in moral cognition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 September 2019
Abstract
May cites a body of evidence suggesting that participants take consequences, personal harm, and other factors into consideration when making moral judgments. This evidence is used to support the conclusion that moral cognition relies on rule-based inference. This commentary defends an alternative interpretation of this evidence, namely, that it can be explained in terms of domain general valuation mechanisms.
- Type
- Open Peer Commentary
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019
References
- 2
- Cited by
Target article
Précis of Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind
Related commentaries (21)
Analyzing debunking arguments in moral psychology: Beyond the counterfactual analysis of influence by irrelevant factors
Baselines for human morality should include species typicality, inheritances, culture, practice, and ecological attachment
Cautiously optimistic rationalism may not be cautious enough
Do framing effects debunk moral beliefs?
Emotions in the development of moral norms within cooperative relationships
Humean replies to Regard for Reason
Kantian indifference about moral reason
Moral foundations are not moral propositions
Moral judgment as reasoning by constraint satisfaction
Moral principles in May's Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind
Moral reasoning is the process of asking moral questions and answering them
Moral reasoning performance determines epistemic peerdom
Optimism in unconscious, intuitive morality
Rationalism, optimism, and the moral mind
Rationalization, controversy, and the entanglement of moral-social cognition: A “critical pessimist” take
The faces of pessimism
The social character of moral reasoning
The space between rationalism and sentimentalism: A perspective from moral development
Valuation mechanisms in moral cognition
What is sentimentalism? What is rationalism?
What sentimentalists should say about emotion
Author response
Defending optimistic rationalism: A reply to commentators