Hostname: page-component-5db6c4db9b-mcx2m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-27T07:42:33.275Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English

Normative theory in decision making and moral reasoning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2011

Natalie Gold ,
Andrew M. Colman  and
Briony D. Pulford
Natalie Gold
Affiliation:
School of Philosophy, Psychology and Language Sciences, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AD, Scotland, United Kingdom. Natalie.Gold@ed.ac.ukhttp://homepages.ed.ac.uk/ngold
Andrew M. Colman
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom. amc@le.ac.ukhttp://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/amcbdp5@le.ac.ukhttp://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/staff/bdp5
Briony D. Pulford
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, United Kingdom. amc@le.ac.ukhttp://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/amcbdp5@le.ac.ukhttp://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/psychology/ppl/staff/bdp5
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Normative theories can be useful in developing descriptive theories, as when normative subjective expected utility theory is used to develop descriptive rational choice theory and behavioral game theory. “Ought” questions are also the essence of theories of moral reasoning, a domain of higher mental processing that could not survive without normative considerations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 5 , October 2011 , pp. 256 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Binmore, K. (2009) Rational decisions. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995) The minimalist program. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1973) Radical interpretation. Dialectica 27:313–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeScioli, P., Christner, J. & Kurzban, R. (in press) The omission strategy. Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1989) Nuts and bolts for the social sciences. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, P. (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxford Review 5:5–15.Google Scholar
Greene, J. D. (2007) Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian? A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:322–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hauser, M. D. (2007) Moral minds: How nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong. Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962) The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mikhail, J. (2007) Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence, and the future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:143–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinn, W. S. (1989) Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of doing and allowing. Philosophical Review 98:287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritov, I. & Baron, J. (1992) Status-quo and omission bias. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 549–61.Google Scholar
Savage, L. J. (1972) The foundations of statistics, 2nd edition. Dover.Google Scholar
Thomson, J. J. (1976) Killing, letting die, and the Trolley problem. The Monist 59:204–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Neumann, J. & Morgenstern, O. (1947) Theory of games and economic behavior, 2nd edition. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1922/1978) Economy and Society: An outline of interpretive sociology, trans. Fischoff, E.; ed. Rothe, G. & Wittich, C.. University of California Press. (Original work published in German in 1922).Google Scholar