Abstract
In this chapter I ask what’s new and what’s old about the new sociology of morality. What might it learn from earlier sociologies of morality? What wheels needn’t be reinvented? In the second section I discuss three old issues: (a) whether morality can and should be scientifically investigated; (b) the fact of moral variation; and (c) the explanation of moral variation. I spell out these three points using the writings of Martineau, Lévy-Bruhl, and Durkheim. In the third section I discuss two new challenges: (a) the implications of moral realism; and (b) the implications of moral neuroscience. I argue that neither challenge can be easily dismissed. Finally, in the fourth section, I very briefly consider the future of the new sociology of morality: what’s next and what unique contributions it can make.
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.
I use existing English translations wherever possible; all others are my own. The translations of “la morale” and “science de la morale” aren’t straightforward. In his “Preface to the Translation” of Division of Labor, George Simpson (1933:x) writes: “I have often translated ‘la morale’ as ethics, although sometimes as morality. I do not think Durkheim made any sharp distinction between them.” But Simpson doesn’t say what he means by them, nor in which cases he uses which. Durkheim’s introduction to La Morale is titled “Introduction to Morality” in one collection of essays (translation by Mark Traugott), and “Introduction to Ethics” in another (translation by H.L. Sutcliffe) (Durkheim [1920]1978, [1920]1979). Remarkably, Durkheim begins this piece precisely by discussing two senses of “la morale.” In my translations I leave the word “morale” in French. [Cf. Sutcliffe (1979:viii): “As is the custom amongst translators of Durkheim, certain words for which there is no precise and unambiguous English equivalent have been left in the original” (see also Fields 2005:174–175.]
- 2.
- 3.
One can’t really speak of the moral nativism thesis, since there are many dissimilar moral nativism theses. Joyce (2006b:257–258) tries to clarify what the “innateness of morality” means as follows: “I suggest that what people generally mean when they debate the ‘innateness of morality’ is whether morality (under some specification) can be given an adaptive explanation in genetic terms: whether the present-day existence of the trait is to be explained by reference to a genotype having granted ancestors reproductive advantage, rather than by reference to psychological processes of acquisition.”
- 4.
It’s beside the point for the purposes of this chapter whether this argument is sound. But I do think that Lévy-Bruhl is sometimes in trouble, especially when he argues that “experience itself testifies against that objection” (p. 214), and uses the expressions “ethical objective reality” and “objective” in an ambiguous fashion (e.g., pp. 214–215).
- 5.
Behind these claims lies Martineau’s metaphysics, which at the time of her writing How to Observe Morals and Manners still had room for “Providence” and “[man’s] Creator”: “The general influences under which universal ideas and feelings of right and wrong are formed, are dispensed by the Providence under which all are educated. That man should be happy is so evidently the intention of his Creator, the contrivances to that end are so multitudinous and so striking, that the perception of the aim may be called universal” (p. 25; cf. Hoecker-Drysdale 1992:26).
- 6.
For example, she argues that, given the nature of the feudal system, “[t]he clergy will be politic, subservient, studious, or indolent, kind-hearted, effeminate, with a strong tendency to spiritual pride, and love of spiritual dominion. It will be surprising, too, if they are not driven into infidelity by the credulity of their pupils” (p. 33).
- 7.
For example, he writes: “There are then sciences which ought to play an indispensable part in ‘ethical physics,’ analogous (I do not say entirely similar) to that of mathematics in physics properly so called. They are the historical sciences. […] If we understand, as we should, by historical sciences, not only the political, diplomatic and military history of nations, but also the history of languages, arts, technology, religions, law, customs, civilization, and institutions, those are the oldest and most fruitful in results of the sciences studied by ‘social nature’; indeed, failing them, the effort to establish sociological laws would be vain. The comparative method, indispensable to reach such laws, is only applicable thanks to the results of the historical sciences” (p. 100).
- 8.
- 9.
For instance, Sturgeon (1988:245–246) proposes this counterfactual: “I do not believe that Hitler would have done all he did if he had not been morally depraved, nor, on the assumption that he was not depraved, can I think of any plausible alternative explanation for his doing those things. Nor is it plausible that we would all have believed he was morally depraved even if he hadn’t been.” See the extensive debate in metaethics about “moral explanations,” kicked off by Harman (1977). The question is analogous to the question of symmetry and impartiality in the sociology of science (Bloor 1991). What’s the difference, if any, between a sociological explanation of purported truths (e.g., some people’s belief that the Earth is an oblate spheroid that revolves around the sun) and a sociological explanation of purported falsehoods (e.g., some people’s belief that the Earth is a flat disk floating in an ocean or supported by a giant tortoise)? For an analogous question in the sociology of religion, see Berger (1967) and Porpora (2006).
- 10.
Admittedly, the skeptic would retort that the Nazis weren’t really wicked. That’s just some people’s opinion. Hitler’s opinion was that they were morally admirable folks. Recall, however, that Jones is assuming that the Nazis weren’t really wicked as far as her scientific endeavor is concerned. Outside the office and the classroom, she does think they were. (This is obviously not an argument against the skeptic, though.)
- 11.
Moral neuroscience’s account about itself relies on another common trope in the history of science: a subject or set of issues traditionally studied by philosophers strikes lucky and starts to be studied by scientists instead, gets promoted to scientific status, we obtain reliable empirical data instead of mere speculation, etc. Here’s another example: “Debates on the moral nature of man have occupied the center of discussions among theologians, philosophers, and layman for millennia. Only recently have we been able to delve empirically into the neural organization of moral behavior” (Moll et al. 2003:299; see also Prehn and Heekeren 2009:129).
- 12.
- 13.
In 1995 the center became the Centre de Recherche Sens, Éthique et Société and the new director Patrick Pharo. The next directors were Simone Bateman and currently Edwige Rude-Antoine. Morality has also been a central theme for Luc Boltanski, Laurent Thévenot, and their Groupe de Sociologie Politique et Morale.
References
Abend, G. 2008. “Two Main Problems in the Sociology of Morality.” Theory and Society 37(2):87–125.
Alexander, J. C. 2002. “On the Social Construction of Moral Universals: The ‘Holocaust’ from Mass Murder to Trauma Drama.” European Journal of Social Theory 5(1):5–86.
Alford, J., C. Funk, and J. R. Hibbing. 2005. “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?” American Political Science Review 99(2):153–167.
Barrett, L. F. 2006. “Are emotions natural kinds?” Perspectives on Psychological Science 1:28–58.
Barrett, L. F., K. Lindquist, and M. Gendron. 2007. “Language as a context for emotion perception.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11:327–332.
Bateman-Novaes, S., R. Ogien, and P. Pharo, eds. 2000. Raison pratique et sociologie de l’éthique. Paris: CNRS.
Bauman, Z. 1989. Modernity and the Holocaust. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Bayet, A. 1905. La morale scientifique. Paris: F. Alcan.
Bayet, A. 1925. La science des faits moraux. Paris: F. Alcan.
Belot, G. 1921 (1907). Études de morale positive. 2 volumes. Paris: F. Alcan.
Berger, P. L. 1967. The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Garden City: Doubleday.
Bloor, D. 1991 (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bouglé, C. C. A. 1922. Leçons de sociologie sur l'évolution des valeurs. Paris: A. Colin.
Brandt, R. 1954. Hopi Ethics: A Theoretical Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Calhoun, C. 1991. “Morality, Identity, and Historical Explanation: Charles Taylor on the Sources of the Self.” Sociological Theory 9(2):232–263.
Dewey, J. 1898. “Evolution and Ethics.” The Monist 8(3):321–341.
Duhem, P. M. M. 1991 (1906). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by Philip P. Wiener. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Durkheim, É. 1975 (1887). “La Science positive de la morale en Allemagne” PP. 267–343 in Textes. 1. Éléments d’une théorie sociale, edited by V. Karady. Paris: Éditions de Minuit.
Durkheim, É. 1993 (1887). Ethics and the Sociology of Morals. Translated with an introduction by Robert T. Hall. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Durkheim, É. 1984 (1893). The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by W. D. Halls. With an Introduction by Lewis A. Coser. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, É. 1982 (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. Edited with an introduction by Steven Lukes. Translated by W. D. Halls. New York: Free Press.
Durkheim, É. 1979 (1904). “Review ‘Lévy-Bruhl, La Morale et la science des moeurs, Alcan, Paris, 1903’.” PP. 29–33 in Durkheim: Essays on Morals and Education. Translated by H. L. Sutcliffe, edited by W. S. F. Pickering. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Durkheim, É. 1979 (1907). “Review ‘Westermarck, The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, vol. I, London, 1906’.” PP. 40–51 in Durkheim: Essays on Morals and Education. Translated by H. L. Sutcliffe, edited by W. S. F. Pickering. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Durkheim, É. 1979 (1920). “Introduction to ethics.” PP. 79–96 in Durkheim: Essays on Morals and Education. Translated by H. L. Sutcliffe, edited by W. S. F. Pickering. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Durkheim, É. 1978 (1920). “Introduction to Morality.” PP. 191–202 in Emile Durkheim on Institutional Analysis. Edited, Translated and with an Introduction by Mark Traugott. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Durkheim, É. [1906]1974. “Replies to Objections.” PP. 63–79 in Durkheim, É. 1974. Sociology and Philosophy. Translated by D. F. Pocock. With an Introduction by J. G. Peristiany. New York: Free Press.
Fauconnet, P. 1920. La responsabilité; étude de sociologie. Paris: F. Alcan.
Fields, K. E. 2005. “What Difference Does Translation Make? Les Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse in French and English.” PP. 160–180 in The Cambridge Companion to Durkheim, edited by J. C. Alexander, and P. Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fine, A. 1998. “The Viewpoint of No-One in Particular.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 72(2):9–20.
Fodor, J. 1980. “Methodological Solipsism Considered as a Research Strategy in Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:63–73.
Freese, J. 2008. “Genetics and the Social Science Explanation of Individual Outcomes.” American Journal of Sociology 114:S1–S35.
Frickel, S., and N. Gross. 2005. “A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements.” American Sociological Review 70(2):204–232.
Goode, E., and N. Ben-Yehuda. 1994. Moral Panics: The Social Construction of Deviance. Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell.
Gurvitch, G. 1937. Morale théorique et science des moeurs. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Gurvitch, G. 1960. “Sociologie de la Vie Morale.” PP. 137–172 in Traité de sociologie (tome second), edited by G. Gurvitch. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Hacking 2002. Historical Ontology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Haidt, J. 2001. “The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment.” Psychological Review 108(4):814–834.
Haidt, J, S. H. Koller, and M. G. Dias. 1993. “Affect, Culture, and Morality, or is It Wrong to Eat Your Dog?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65(4):613–628.
Hall, R. T. 1993. “Introduction.” PP. 11–53 in Durkheim, Émile. [1887] 1993. Ethics and the Sociology of Morals. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.
Harman, G. 1977. The Nature of Morality: An Introduction to Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harman, G., and J. J. Thomson. 1996. Moral Relativism and Moral Objectivity. Cambridge: Blackwell.
Healy, K. 2006. Last Best Gifts: Altruism and the Market for Human Blood and Organs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heimer, C. A., and L. R. Staffen. 1998. For the Sake of the Children: The Social Organization of Responsibility in the Hospital and the Home. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Henrich, J., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, and H. Gintis, eds. 2004. Foundations of Human Sociality: Economic Experiments and Ethnographic Evidence from Fifteen Small-Scale Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Henrich, J., R. Boyd, S. Bowles, C. Camerer, E. Fehr, H. Gintis, R. McElreath, M. Alvard, A. Barr, J. Ensminger, N. Smith Henrich, K. Hill, F. Gil-White, M. Gurven, F. W. Marlowe, J. Q. Patton, and D. Tracer. 2005. “‘Economic Man’ in Cross-Cultural Perspective: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28:795–855.
Hill, M. R. 1989. “Introduction to the Transaction Edition: Empiricism and Reason in Harriet Martineau’s Sociology.” PP. xv–lx in: Martineau, Harriet. [1838] 1989. How to Observe Morals and Manners. New Burnswick and Oxford: Transaction Publishers.
Hobhouse, L. T. 1906. Morals in Evolution: A Study in Comparative Ethics. London: Chapman and Hall.
Hoecker-Drysdale, S. 1992. Harriet Martineau: First Woman Sociologist. Oxford and New York: Berg.
Horton, R. 1993. “Lévy-Bruhl, Durkheim and the Scientific Revolution.” PP. 63–104 in Patterns of Thought in Africa and the West: Essays on Magic, Religion and Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huxley, T. H. 1893. Evolution and Ethics, Delivered in the Sheldonian Theatre, May 18, 1893. London; New York: Macmillan & Co.
Isambert, F.-A. 1990. “Durkheim: une science de la morale pour une morale laïque.” Archives des Sciences Sociales des Religions 69(1):129–146.
Isambert, F.-A., P. Ladrière, and J.-P. Terrenoire. 1978. “Pour une sociologie de l’éthique.” Revue Française de Sociologie 19(3):323–339.
Jackall, R. 1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers. New York: Oxford University Press.
Joyce, R. 2006a. The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Joyce, R. 2006b “Is Human Morality Innate?” PP. 257–279 in The Innate Mind, Volume 2: Culture and Cognition, edited by P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, and S. Stich. New York: Oxford University Press.
Koenigs, M., L. Young, R. Adolphs, D. Tranel, F. Cushman, M. Hauser, and A. Damasio. 2007. “Damage to the Prefrontal Cortex Increases Utilitarian Moral Judgements.” Nature 446(7138):908–911.
Ladrière, P. 2001. Pour une sociologie de l’éthique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Lecky, W. E. H. 1884 (1869). History of European Morals from Augustus to Charlemagne. In Two Volumes. 6th ed. London: Longmans, Green, and co.
Lengermann, P. M., and J. Niebrugge. 2001. “The Meaning of ‘Things’: Theory and Method in Harriet Martineau’s How to Observe Morals and Manners (1838) and Émile Durkheim’s The Rules of Sociological Method (1895).” PP. 75–97 in: Harriet Martineau: Theoretical and Methodological Perspectives, edited by M. R. Hill, and S. Hoecker-Drysdale. New York and London: Routledge.
Leroux, E. 1930. “Ethical Thought in France Since the War.” International Journal of Ethics 40(2):145–178.
Lévy-Bruhl, L. 1905 (1903). Ethics and Moral Science. Translated by Elizabeth Lee. London: Archibald Constable & Co.
Lindquist, K., L. F. Barrett,, E. Bliss-Moreau, and J. A. Russell. 2006. “Language and the perception of emotion.” Emotion 6:125–138.
Lindquist, K., and L. F. Barrett. 2008. “Constructing emotion: The experience of fear as a conceptual act.” Psychological Science 19:898–903.
Loeb, D. 2005. “Moral Explanations of Moral Beliefs.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research LXX(1): 193–208.
Lukes, S. 1973. Émile Durkheim, His Life and Work: A Historical and Critical Study. London: Allen Lane.
Lukes, S. 2008. Moral Relativism. London: Profile Books.
Mackie, J. L. 1977. Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Harmondsworth, New York: Penguin.
Martineau, H. 1837. Society in America. In Three Volumes. London: Saunders and Otley.
Martineau, H. 1838. How to Observe. Morals and Manners. London: Charles Knight and Co.
Merllié, D. 2004. “La sociologie de la morale est-elle soluble dans la philosophie ? La réception de La morale et la science des moeurs.” Revue Française de Sociologie 45(3):415–440.
Moll, J., R. de Oliveira-Souza, and P. J. Eslinger. 2003. “Morals and the Human Brain: A Working Model.” NeuroReport 14(3):299–305.
Moody-Adams, M. M. 1997. Fieldwork in Familiar Places: Morality, Culture, and Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nagel, T. 1986. The View from Nowhere. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nesse, R. 2009. “How Can Evolution and Neuroscience Help Us Understand Moral Capacities? PP. 201–209 in The Moral Brain: Essays on the Evolutionary and Neuroscientific Aspects of Morality, edited by J. Verplaetse, J. De Schrijver, S. Vanneste, and J. Braeckman. Dordrecht: Springer.
Olson, J. M., P. A. Vernon, J. Aitken Harris, and K. L. Jang. 2001. “The Heritability of Attitudes: A Study of Twins.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80(6):845–860.
Ossowska, M. 1970. Social Determinants of Moral Ideas. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Pharo, P. 2004. Morale et sociologie: le sens et les valeurs entre nature et culture. Paris: Gallimard.
Pickering, W. S. F. 1979. “Introduction.” PP. 3–28 in Durkheim, Émile. 1979. Essays on Morals and Education. Translated by H. L. Sutcliffe, edited by W. S. F. Pickering. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Pippin, R. B. 2009. “Natural and Normative.” Daedalus Summer 2009:35–43.
Porpora, D. V. 2006. “Methodological Atheism, Methodological Agnosticism, and Religious Experience.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 36(1):57–75.
Prehn, K., and H. R. Heekeren. 2009. “Moral Judgment and the Brain: A Functional Approach to the Question of Emotion and Cognition in Moral Judgment Integrating Psychology, Neuroscience and Evolutionary Biology.” PP. 129–154 in The Moral Brain: Essays on the Evolutionary and Neuroscientific Aspects of Morality, edited by J. Verplaetse, J. De Schrijver, S. Vanneste, and J. Braeckman. Dordrecht: Springer.
Prinz, J. 2007. The Emotional Construction of Morals. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Prinz, J. 2008. “Is Morality Innate?” PP. 367–406 in Moral Psychology, Volume 1: The Evolution of Morality: Adaptations and Innateness, edited by W. Sinnott-Armstrong. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Putnam, H. 1981. Reason, Truth, and History. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, H. 1990. “Objectivity and the Science/Ethics Distinction.” PP. 163–178 in Realism with a human face. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, H. 1992. “Bernard Williams and the Absolute Conception of the World” PP. 80–107 in Renewing philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, H. 2002. The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, H. 2004. Ethics Without Ontology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Quine, W. V. O. 1953. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” PP. 20–46 in From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rachels, J. 2001. “The Challenge of Cultural Relativism.” PP. 53–65 in Moral Relativism: A Reader, edited by P. K. Moser, and T. L. Carson. New York: Oxford University Press.
Renouvier, C. 2002 (1869). Science de la morale. 2 vols. Paris: Fayard.
Ross, L., and R. E. Nisbett, 1991. The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scanlon, T. M. 2009. Being Realistic About Reasons. 2009 Locke Lectures. Oxford University.
Sidgwick, H. 1880. “Mr. Spencer’s Ethical System.” Mind 5(18):216–226.
Simmel, G. 1989–1991 (1891–1892). Einleitung in die Moralwissenschaft: Eine Kritik der ethischen Grundbegriffe. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Simpson, G. 1933. “Preface to the Translation.” PP. vii–xi in: Durkheim, Émile. [1893] 1933. The Division of Labor in Society. Translated by George Simpson. Glencoe: Free Press.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W. 2008. “Introduction.” PP. xiii–xix in Moral Psychology, Volume 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Small, A. W. 1905. General Sociology: An Exposition of the Main Development in Sociological Theory from Spencer to Ratzenhofer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Small, A. W. 1910. The Meaning of Social Science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Somers, M. R. 1995. “What’s Political or Cultural about Political Culture and the Public Sphere? Toward an Historical Sociology of Concept Formation.” Sociological Theory 13(2):113–144.
Spencer, H. 1879. The Data of Ethics. New York: D. Appleton and company.
Spencer, H. 1881. “Replies to Criticisms on the Data of Ethics.” Mind 6(21):82–98.
Stephen, L. 1882. The Science of Ethics. New York: G. P. Putnam’s sons.
Sturgeon, N. 1988 (1984). “Moral Explanations.” PP. 229–255 in Essays on Moral Realism, edited by G. Sayre-McCord. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.
Sturgeon, N. 1998. “Thomson Against Moral Explanations.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58(1): 199–206.
Sutcliffe, H. L. 1979. “The Translations.” P. viii in Durkheim: Essays on Morals and Education. Translated by H. L. Sutcliffe, edited by W. S. F. Pickering. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Sutherland, A. 1898. The Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.
Thomas, R. 2006. “The Intellectual Milieu of Herodotus.” PP. 60–75 in The Cambridge Companion to Herodotus, edited by C. Dewald, and J. Marincola. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thomson, J. J. 1998. “Reply to Critics.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58(1):215–222.
Tufts, J. H. 1912. “Recent Discussions of Moral Evolution.” Harvard Theological Review 5(2):155–179.
Turner, J. H., and J. E. Stets. 2005. The Sociology of Emotions. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Turner, S. P. 1993. “Introduction: Reconnecting the Sociologist to the Moralist.” PP. 1–22 in Émile Durkheim: Sociologist and Moralist, edited by S. P. Turner. London: Routledge.
Verplaetse, J., J. Braeckman, and J. De Schrijver. 2009. “Introduction.” PP. 1–43 in The Moral Brain: Essays on the Evolutionary and Neuroscientific Aspects of Morality, edited by J. Verplaetse, J. De Schrijver, S. Vanneste, and J. Braeckman. Dordrecht: Springer.
Wall Street Journal. 2007. “Scientists Draw Link Between Morality and Brain’s Wiring.” May 11, 2007, p. B1.
Watts Miller, W. 1996. Durkheim, Morals and Modernity. London: UCL Press.
Wheatley, T., and J. Haidt. 2005. “Hypnotically Induced Disgust Makes Moral Judgments More Severe.” Psychological Science 16:780–784.
Williams, B. 1985. Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, R. A. 1995. Cartesian Psychology and Physical Minds: Individualism and the Sciences of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wilson, R. A. 2004. Boundaries of the Mind: The Individual in the Fragile Sciences. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wundt, W. 1886. Ethik: Eine Untersuchung der Thatsachen und Gesetze des sittlichen Lebens. Stuttgart: Verlag von Ferdinand Enke.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Abend, G. (2010). What’s New and What’s Old about the New Sociology of Morality. In: Hitlin, S., Vaisey, S. (eds) Handbook of the Sociology of Morality. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6896-8_30
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6896-8_30
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-6894-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4419-6896-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)