Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-9pm4c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T23:46:21.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How is the moral stance related to the intentional stance and group thinking?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2020

Hannes Rakoczy Open the ORCID record for Hannes Rakoczy [Opens in a new window]
Hannes Rakoczy*
Affiliation:
Department of Developmental Psychology, Institute of Psychology, D- 37073Göttingen, Germany. hannes.rakoczy@psych.uni-goettingen.dehttps://www.psych.uni-goettingen.de/en/development?set_language=en
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The natural history of our moral stance told here in this commentary reveals the close nexus of morality and basic social-cognitive capacities. Big mysteries about morality thus transform into smaller and more manageable ones. Here, I raise questions regarding the conceptual, ontogenetic, and evolutionary relations of the moral stance to the intentional and group stances and to shared intentionality.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e82
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Nagel, T. (1970a) The possibility of altruism. Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, M. F. H., Rakoczy, H. & Tomasello, M. (2012) Young children enforce social norms selectively depending on the violator's group affiliation. Cognition 124(3):325–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sellars, W. (1962) Philosophy and the scientific image of man. In: Frontiers of science and philosophy, ed. Colodny, R., pp. 35–78. University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Turiel, E. (1983) The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar