Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 93–104 | Cite as

Rationalizing our Way into Moral Progress

  • Jesse S. SummersEmail author
Article

Abstract

Research suggests that the explicit reasoning we offer to ourselves and to others is often rationalization, that we act instead on instincts, inclinations, stereotypes, emotions, neurobiology, habits, reactions, evolutionary pressures, unexamined principles, or justifications other than the ones we think we’re acting on, then we tell a post hoc story to justify our actions. This is troubling for views of moral progress according to which moral progress proceeds from our engagement with our own and others’ reasons. I consider an account of rationalization, based on Robert Audi’s, to make clear that rationalization, unlike simple lying, can be sincere. Because it can be sincere, and because we also have a desire to be consistent with ourselves, I argue that rationalization sets us up for becoming better people over time, and that a similar case can be made to explain how moral progress among groups of people can proceed via rationalization.

Keywords

Moral progress Rationalization Real reasons Explanatory and justificatory reasons Psychological explanations 

References

  1. Audi R (1985) Rationalization and Rationality. Synthese 65(2):159–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Campbell R, Kumar V (2012) Moral Reasoning on the Ground. Ethics 122(2):273–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cushman F, Greene J (2011) The philosopher in the theater. In: Mikulincer M, Shaver PR (eds) The Social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. APA Press, Washington, DC, pp. 33–50Google Scholar
  4. D’Cruz J (2015) Rationalization as performative pretense. Philos Psychol 28(7):980–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Danziger S, Levav J, Avnaim-Pesso L (2011) Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(17):6889–6892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doleac JL, Stein LCD (2013) The Visible Hand: Race and Online Market Outcomes. Econ J 123(572):F469–F492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gazzaniga MS (2011) Who’s in Charge?: Free Will and the Science of the Brain. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Greene JD (2007) The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In: Sinnott-Armstrong W (ed) Volume 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 35–80Google Scholar
  9. Greenspan P (2015) Confabulating the Truth: In Defense of “Defensive” Moral Reasoning. J Ethics 19(2):105-123Google Scholar
  10. Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108(4):814–834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Korsgaard C (1996) The sources of normativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Libet, B. (1999). Do We have free will? J Conscious Stud 6(8–9):47–57.Google Scholar
  13. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84:231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Schnall S, Haidt J, Clore GL, Jordan AH (2008) Disgust as Embodied Moral Judgment. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 34(8):1096–1109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schroeder T (2010) Irrational Action and Addiction. In: Ross D, Kincaid H, Spurrett D, Collins P (eds) What is Addiction? MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 391–407Google Scholar
  16. Summers JS, Sinnott-Armstrong W (2015) Scrupulous Judgments. In: Timmons M (ed) Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume 5. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 129–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wegner D, Wheatley T (1999) Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. Am Psychol 54(7):480–492Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations