Abstract
This chapter provides a closing summary of the book and offers specific suggestions for research and training in professional and academic disciplines, including not just applied ethics, but the sciences, literary studies, and the fine arts. A serious embrace of the centrality of Type 1 processes in decision making and moral valuation creates the responsibility of each discipline to investigate the character and impact of such sensibilities on their practice and research designs, and encourages more extensive interdisciplinary cooperation. The potential cultural limitations of the model are also discussed given that non-Western cultures often lack the kinds of dual cognition assumptions operating in the West.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an expression of this, see H. Klebesadel and L. Kornetsky (2009) ‘Critique as Signature Pedagogy in the Arts’, in R. A. R. Gurung, N. L. Chick, and Aeron Haynie (eds) Exploring Signature Pedagogies: Approaches to Teaching Disciplinary Habits of Mind (Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC), 108.
- 2.
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.), National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (U.S.) (2005) Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (Washington, DC: National Academies Press), 3 and 53.
- 3.
D. A. Schön (1991) Educating the Reflective Practitioner (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers), 33.
- 4.
Schön, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, 25.
- 5.
Schön, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, 35.
- 6.
Schön, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, 37.
- 7.
Schön, Educating the Reflective Practitioner, 39–40.
- 8.
See, for example, B. Gordijn and W. Dekkers (2008) ‘Ethical Expertise Revisited’, Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 11, 125–6.
- 9.
Many studies back up this contention. See A. Norenzayan, E. E. Smith, B. J. Kim, and R. E. Nisbett (2002) ‘Cultural Preferences for Formal Versus Intuitive Reasoning’, Cognitive Science, 26, 653–84; K. Peng and R. E. Nisbett (1999) ‘Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning about Contradiction’, American Psychologist, 54, 741–54; W. Wong (2006) ‘Understanding Dialectical Thinking from a Cultural-Historical Perspective’, Philosophical Psychology, 19, 239–60; G. N. Wright and L. D. Phillips (1980) ‘Cultural Variation in Probabilistic Thinking: Alternative Ways of Dealing with Uncertainty’, International Journal of Psychology, 15, 239–57; G. E. R. Lloyd (1996) ‘Science in Antiquity: The Greek and Chinese Cases and their Relevance to the Problems’, in D. R. Olson (ed.) Modes of Thought: Explorations in Culture and Cognition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 15–33; A. MacIntyre (1991) ‘Incommensurability, Truth, and the Conversation Between Confucians and Aristotelians about the Virtues’, in E. Deutsch (ed.) Culture and Modernity: East-West Philosophic Perspective (Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press), 104–22; M. D. Gu (2006) ‘Theory of Fiction: A Non-Western Narrative Tradition’, Narrative, 14, 311–38; and K. Mukaida, H. Azuma, L. Shapiro, and D. S. Crystal (2010) ‘Cultural Scripts in Narratives about Future Life: Comparisons among Japanese, Chinese, and American Students’, Japanese Journal of Personality, 19, 107–21.
- 10.
R. E. Nisbet (2003) The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently … and Why (New York: The Free Press), 22–7.
- 11.
D. Kahneman (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux), 96–7 and 151–3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tillman, J.J. (2016). Conclusion. In: An Integrative Model of Moral Deliberation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49022-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-49022-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-49021-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-49022-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)