Neurosentimentalism and Moral Agency.

Metaethics has recently been confronted by evidence from cognitive neuroscience that tacit emotional processes play an essential causal role in moral judgement. Most neuroscientists, and some metaethicists, take this evidence to vindicate a version of metaethical sentimentalism. In this paper we arg...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Mind (0026-4423) Vol. 119; no. 475; pp. 585 - 615
Autores principales: Gerrans, Philip, Kennett, Jeanette
Formato: Artículo
Publicado: Oxford University Press / USA Jul2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=69709244&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: hlh
    uiTerm: 69709244
    longDbName: Humanities International Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        00264423
        MND
      jtl: Mind (0026-4423)
      issn: 00264423
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jul2010
      vid: 119
      iid: 475
      pid: 622
      pub: Oxford University Press / USA
    artinfo:
      ui:
        69709244
        10.1093/mind/fzq037
      ppf: 585
      ppct: 30
      formats:
        fmt:
          @attributes:
            type: P
            size: 144KB
      tig:
        atl: Neurosentimentalism and Moral Agency.
      aug:
        au:
          Gerrans, Philip
          Kennett, Jeanette
        affil:
          The University of Adelaide philip.gerrans@adelaide.edu.au
          Macquarie University jeanette.kennett@scmp.mq.edu.au
      su:
        Sentimentalism
        Metaethics
        Cognitive neuroscience
        Neuroscientists
        Philosophy
      sug:
        subj:
          Sentimentalism
          Metaethics
          Cognitive neuroscience
          Neuroscientists
          Philosophy
      ab: Metaethics has recently been confronted by evidence from cognitive neuroscience that tacit emotional processes play an essential causal role in moral judgement. Most neuroscientists, and some metaethicists, take this evidence to vindicate a version of metaethical sentimentalism. In this paper we argue that the ‘dual process’ model of cognition that frames the discussion within and without philosophy does not do justice to an important constraint on any theory of deliberation and judgement. Namely, decision-making is the exercise of a capacity for agency. Agency, in turn, requires a capacity to conceive of oneself as temporally extended: to inhabit, in both memory and imagination, an autobiographical past and future. To plan, to commit to plans, and to act in accordance with previous plans requires a diachronic self, able to transcend the present moment. While this fact about agency is central to much of moral philosophy (e.g. in discussions of autonomy and moral responsibility) it is opaque to the dual process framework and those meta-ethical accounts which situate themselves within this model of cognition. We show how this is the case and argue for an empirically adequate account of moral judgement which gives sufficient role to memory and imagination as cognitive prerequisites of agency. We reconsider the empirical evidence, provide an alternative, agentive, interpretation of key findings, and evaluate the consequences for metaethics.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype: Article
      src: R
    language: English
    refInfo:
    copyright:
      @attributes:
        flag: Y
      custom: © 2019 Mind Association.
      item: Mind (0026-4423)
      holder: Oxford University Press / USA
      dt:
        @attributes:
          year: 2010
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N