Advertisement

Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 169–181 | Cite as

Analogies, Moral Intuitions, and the Expertise Defence

  • Regina A. Rini
Article

Abstract

The evidential value of moral intuitions has been challenged by psychological work showing that the intuitions of ordinary people are affected by distorting factors. One reply to this challenge, the expertise defence, claims that training in philosophical thinking confers enhanced reliability on the intuitions of professional philosophers. This defence is often expressed through analogy: since we do not allow doubts about folk judgments in domains like mathematics or physics to undermine the plausibility of judgments by experts in these domains, we also should not do so in philosophy. In this paper I clarify the logic of the analogy strategy, and defend it against recent challenges by Jesper Ryberg. The discussion exposes an interesting divide: while Ryberg’s challenges may weaken analogies between morality and domains like mathematics, they do not affect analogies to other domains, such as physics. I conclude that the expertise defence can be supported by analogical means, though care is required in selecting an appropriate analog. I discuss implications of this conclusion for the expertise defence debate and for study of the moral domain itself.

Keywords

Moral Judgment Expertise Domain Moral Philosophy Ordinary People Perceptual State 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alexander, J. 2012. Experimental philosophy: An introduction. 1st ed. Polity.Google Scholar
  2. Archard, David. 2011. Why moral philosophers are not and should not be moral experts. Bioethics 25(3): 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baier, Annette. 1985. Theory and Reflective Practices. In Postures of the mind. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cappelen, H. 2012. Philosophy without intuitions. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clarke-Doane, J. 2012. “Moral epistemology: the mathematics analogy*.” Noûs: Online Access. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0068.2012.00875.x.
  6. Dewey, John. 1922. Human nature and conduct: An introduction to social psychology. New York: Modern Library, Inc.Google Scholar
  7. Dworkin, Ronald. 1996. Objectivity and truth: you’d better believe it. Philosophy & Public Affairs 25(2): 87–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Feyerabend, P.K. 1957. An attempt at a realistic interpretation of experience. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 58: 143–170.Google Scholar
  9. Flanagan, Owen. 1993. Varieties of moral personality: Ethics and psychological realism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Flanagan, Owen J. 1982. Quinean ethics. Ethics 93(1): 56–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gesang, Bernward. 2010. Are moral philosophers moral experts? Bioethics 24(4): 153–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldman, Alvin I. 2001. Experts: which ones should you trust? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63(1): 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horvath, Joachim. 2010. How (not) to react to experimental philosophy. Philosophical Psychology 23(4): 447–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kant, I. 1785. Groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. Translated by Allen W. Wood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kitcher, Philip. 2011. The ethical project. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ludwig, Kirk. 2007. The epistemology of thought experiments: first person versus third person approaches. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 31(1): 128–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nado, J. 2012. “Why intuition?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research: Online Access. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2012.00644.x.
  18. Nagel, Thomas. 1978. Ethics as an autonomous theoretical subject. In Morality as a biological phenomenon: The presuppositions of sociobiological research, ed. Gunther S. Stent, 198–205. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Nagel, Thomas. 1997. The last word. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Noble, Cheryl N. 1982. Ethics and experts. The Hastings Center Report 12(3): 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nussbaum, M.C. 2003. Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Pryor, James. 2000. The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs 34(4): 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rawls, John. 1971. A theory of justice, 1st ed. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Ryberg, Jesper. 2013. Moral intuitions and the expertise defence. Analysis 73(2): 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schulz, Eric, Edward T. Cokely, and Adam Feltz. 2011. Persistent bias in expert judgments about free will and moral responsibility: a test of the expertise defense. Consciousness and Cognition 20(4): 1722–1731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schwitzgebel, Eric, and Fiery Cushman. 2012. Expertise in moral reasoning? order effects on moral judgment in professional philosophers and non-philosophers. Mind and Language 27(2): 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sidgwick, H. 1907. The methods of ethics. Hackett.Google Scholar
  28. Singer, Peter. 1972. Moral experts. Analysis 32(4): 115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Singer, Peter. 1981. The expanding circle: Ethics and sociobiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2008. “Framing moral intuition.” In Moral Psychology, Vol 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity, 47–76. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Tobia, K., Wesley, B., and S. Stich. 2012. “Moral intuitions: are philosophers experts?” Philosophical Psychology: Online Access. doi: 10.1080/09515089.2012.696327.
  32. Weinberg, Jonathan M., Chad Gonnerman, Cameron Buckner, and Joshua Alexander. 2010. Are philosophers expert intuiters? Philosophical Psychology 23(3): 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams, Bernard. 1985. Ethics and the limits of philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Williamson, T. 2007. The philosophy of philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Williamson, Timothy. 2011. Philosophical expertise and the burden of proof. Metaphilosophy 42(3): 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Williamson, T. 2013. “Book review: Experimental philosophy: An introduction by Joshua Alexander.” Philosophy Online Access. doi: 10.1017/S0031819113000259.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations