Titlebook: Intuitively Rational: How We Think and How We Should; Andrew McGee,Charles Foster Book 2024 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s

Default

Neuroscience and Judgment, brain function draws deeply on these findings. The reliance typically caricatures brain anatomy and function, concentrating on gross structures rather than micro-circuits, ignoring the degree of cross-connection in brain circuitry, failing to take into account a mass of confounding variables, and i

神圣将军

Taking the Evolutionary Psychological Elephant by the Tusks, is merely a PR company or spokesperson for moral positions already formed by the emotional centres in our brain. Its role is to rationalise, excuse, and to enable people to uphold their reputations. He applies his ‘Moral Foundations Theory’, the pillars of which are the tensions between care/harm,

forbid

Moral Truth,f expressed. Things are true in and of the world independently of the existence of any person to utter statements about them. We criticise Joshua Greene’s confused and internally contradictory account of moral truth. We can differ about moral beliefs in a way that we cannot sensibly (assuming we hav

Diluge

愤愤不平

Selfish Genes and Morality,in some accounts of the nature of morality. Jonathan Haidt applies the concept at the organism level (not the gene level) to endorse Glaucon’s famous picture of humans as beings who act out of self-interest even when they are putatively acting morally. We examine these claims in the light of Richard

头盔

Junction

Limits of Trolley Problem Style Thought Experiments,work relies. We show how, in some cases, illegitimate stipulations are made which render unsound the conclusions some writers draw from trolley problem scenarios, (including some of the empirical work). Some attempts to respond to these problems do not work. We argue that many of Frances Kamm’s atte

肉体

Realistic Trolleyology?,in the war. The chapter offers a way of resolving these real dilemmas, and some imagined but realistic dilemmas. We discuss Judith Jarvis Thomson’s 2008 solution to the trolley problem. Whilst we broadly accept her solution, we criticise her approach to the well-known driver version. We argue that w

宽大

,Steering a Course Between Haidt’s Intuitionism and Singer’s Austere Rationalism,ost self-styled rationalists and cognitivists including Greene and Peter Singer—consequentialism and its popular version, utilitarianism—are open to serious objections. Yet Singer is famous for claiming that he merely follows the argument where it leads, which seems to express an unshakeable commitm

不合