This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
See also Sinnott-Armstrong (2006).
See Thomson (1985, 1402).
For example, similar results were reported for variations on the “crying baby” thought experiment. See Greene (2008, 44).
See, e.g., Baron and Ritov (1993).
On this idea, see Mackie (1985, 215ff).
For some reasons to doubt the success of this kind of debunking argument see, e.g., Berker (2009).
Indeed, Greene (2013, 63ff) makes comments along these lines.
For more on how collective action problems pose these sorts of difficulties for utilitarian agents, see Harsanyi (1977).
I say “most” actors rather than “all” because, as Brad Hooker argues, a consequentialist theory ought to provide guidance for dealing with people who lack moral motivation or follow the wrong moral rules. See Hooker (2002, 83).
The incoherence objection is typically lodged against rule utilitarianism as a criterion of rightness whereas here I am framing it as an objection to the use of rule utilitarianism as a decision procedure intended to satisfy an act utilitarian criterion of rightness. Thanks are due to Dale Miller for emphasizing this point. The incoherence objection still has force in this context because it is, at a minimum, a prima facie problem if a moral theory only avoids self-defeat in the case that its adherents act irrationally.
On this idea, see Rawls (1999, 21).
For a more complete discussion of modular rationality, see Skyrms (1998, chapter 2).
See Skyrms (1998, 39) for a discussion of this point.
See Greene (2013, 350).
This argument is reminiscent of objections lodged by Bernard Williams (1988) against R.M. Hare’s two-level utilitarianism.
For an argument in this spirit, see Hooker (2002, 76).
See, e.g., (Fehr et al. 2002).
Greene (2013, 15) writes that our moral emotions are “gut-level instincts that enable cooperation within personal relationships and small groups.” But this statement omits mention of their ability to enable cooperation within impersonal relationships and large groups. After all, retributive punishment (or the threat thereof) appears to foster cooperation in the taxi case, where the actors involved are strangers and the interaction takes place within an enormous community. Indeed, the actors can cooperate in this case while also endorsing different answers to the controversial large-scale moral questions that underlie the “Tragedy of Commonsense Morality.”
For a different perspective on this point, see Frank (2007).
Greene (2013, 58) suggests something like this possibility.
On the importance of expectation effects for utilitarianism, see, e.g., Harsanyi (1977).
For a related discussion of publicity, see Rawls (2005, 66–71).
See Bicchieri (2006, chapter 5). Our deontological intuitions can bring us to a Nash equilibrium even if utilitarian reasoning would be a better coordination point (although, again, my arguments in the previous section cast doubt on this claim). Consider the case of language again: even if we’d all be better off speaking Esperanto, I don’t have a reason to switch unless sufficiently many others switch as well. Similarly, if a useful moral code is one that will help us coordinate our plans and expectations—that is, it will function as a shared decision procedure—then individual moral agents should switch to a new code only if others switch too. Thanks are due to an anonymous referee for helpful questions on this point.
An anonymous referee notes that utilitarians are able to coordinate with non-utilitarians in the real world. However, I would predict that this coordination is due to utilitarians’ reliance on intuitive moral judgment for micro-level decisions.
Thanks are due to an anonymous referee for raising this objection.
For instance, Greene (2013, 114) reports that subjects say that it is wrong to push someone off of a footbridge in the trolley problem.
Baron J, Ritov I (1993) Intuitions about penalties and compensation in the context of tort law. J Risk Uncertain 7(1):17–33
Berker S (2009) The normative insignificance of neuroscience. Philos Public Aff 37(4):293–329
Bicchieri C (2006) The grammar of society: the nature and dynamics of social norms. Cambridge University Press, New York
Brandt R (1979) A theory of the good and the right. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Daniels N (1996) Reflective equilibrium and justice as political. In: Justice and justification. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 144–178
Fehr E, Fischbacher U, Gächter S (2002) Strong reciprocity, human cooperation and the enforcement of social norms. Hum Nat 13(1):1–25
Foot P (1967) Abortion and the doctrine of double effect. Oxf Rev 5:28–41
Foot P (1985) Utilitarianism and the virtues. Mind 94(374):196–209
Frank R (1988) Passions within reason: the strategic role of the emotions. W.W. Norton and Company, New York
Frank R (2007) The status of moral emotions in consequentialist moral reasoning. In: Zak P (ed) Moral markets: the critical role of values in the economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 42–62
Gauthier D (1986) Morals by agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gintis H, Bowles S, Boyd R, Fehr E (eds) (2006) Moral sentiments and material interests: the foundations of cooperation in economic life. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Greene J (2002) The terrible, horrible, no good, very bad truth about morality, and what to do about it. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Philosophy, Princeton University
Greene J (2008) The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W (ed) Moral psychology, volume 3: the neuroscience of morality: emotion, brain disorders, and development. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 35–80
Greene J (2013) Moral tribes. Penguin, New York
Greif A (2000) The fundamental problem of exchange: a research agenda in historical institutional analysis. Eur Rev Econ Hist 4(3):251–284
Harsanyi J (1977) Rule utilitarianism and decision theory. Erkenntnis 11(1):25–53
Harsanyi J (1982) Morality and the theory of rational behavior. In: Sen A, Williams B (eds) Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 39–62
Hooker B (2002) Ideal code, real world. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Hume D (2003) A treatise of human nature. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Joyce R (2006) The evolution of morality. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Kamm FM (2009) Neuroscience and moral reasoning: a note on recent research. Philos Public Aff 37(4):330–345
Lyons D (1965) Forms and limits of utilitarianism. Clarendon, Oxford
Mackie JL (1985) Morality and the retributive emotions. In: Mackie J, Mackie P (eds) Persons and values, volume 2. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 206–219
McClennen E (1990) Rationality and dynamic choice: foundational explorations. Cambridge University Press, New York
Olson M (1971) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Railton P (1984) Alienation, consequentialism, and the demands of morality. Philos Public Aff 13(2):134–171
Rawls J (1999) A theory of justice. The Belknap Press, Cambridge
Rawls J (2005) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York
Sanfey A, Rilling J, Aronson J, Nystrom L, Cohen J (2003) The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 300(5626):1755–1758
Sidgwick H (1981) The methods of ethics. Hackett, Indianapolis
Singer P (2005) Ethics and intuitions. J Ethics 9(3–4):331–352
Sinnott-Armstrong W (2006) Moral intuitionism meets empirical psychology. In: Horgan T, Timmons M (eds) Metaethics after Moore. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 339–366
Skyrms B (1998) Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Smart JJC (1956) Extreme and restricted utilitarianism. Philos Q 6(25):344–354
Street S (2006) A Darwinian dilemma for realist theories of value. Philos Stud 127(1):109–166
Thomson JJ (1976) Killing, letting die, and the trolley problem. Monist 59(2):204–217
Thomson JJ (1985) The trolley problem. Yale Law J 94(6):1395–1415
Williams B (1988) The structure of Hare’s theory. In: Seanor D, Foton N (eds) Hare and critics. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 185–196
Woodward J, Allman J (2007) Moral intuition: its neural substrates and normative significance. J Physiol Paris 101(4–6):179–202
Thanks are due to Julia Annas, Nathan Ballantyne, Robyn Bluhm, Thomas Christiano, Gerald Gaus, Josh Gert, Brad Hooker, Dale Miller, David Schmidtz, participants at the 2008 Eastern Division meeting of the American Philosophical Association, participants at the 2008 Interdisciplinary Approaches to Philosophical Issues conference at the University of South Alabama, and two anonymous refereees for this journal for their helpful comments.
About this article
Cite this article
Freiman, C. How Neuroscience Can Vindicate Moral Intuition. Ethic Theory Moral Prac 18, 1011–1025 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-015-9571-y
- Moral psychology
- Moral intuitions