This article has been cited by other articles in PMC. Abstract Mind perception entails ascribing mental capacities to other entities, whereas moral judgment entails labeling entities as good or bad or actions as right or wrong. We suggest that mind perception is the essence of moral judgment. In particular, we suggest that moral judgment is rooted in a cognitive template of two perceived minds—a moral dyad of an intentional agent and a suffering moral patient.
Some Historical Background What follows in this section is a brief outline of the origins and trajectory of reflection on moral responsibility in the Western philosophical tradition.
Against this background, a distinction will be drawn between two conceptions of moral responsibility that have exerted considerable influence on subsequent thinkers. An understanding of the concept of moral responsibility and its application is present implicitly in some of the earliest surviving Greek texts, i.
If some particular outcome is fated, then it seems that the agent concerned could not be morally responsible for that outcome. Likewise, if fatalism were true with respect to all human futures, then it would seem that no human agent could be morally responsible for anything.
Though this brand of fatalism has sometimes exerted significant historical influence, most philosophers have rejected it on the grounds that there is no good reason to think that our futures are fated in the sense that they will unfold no matter what particular deliberations we engage in, choices we make, or actions we perform.
Aristotle — BCE seems to have been the first to construct a theory of moral responsibility. A bit later, he clarifies that only a certain kind of agent qualifies as a moral agent and is thus properly subject to ascriptions of responsibility, namely, one who possess a capacity for decision.
According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features.
|Introduction: What is Moral Psychology?||What is Moral Psychology?|
|An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.||Some Historical Background What follows in this section is a brief outline of the origins and trajectory of reflection on moral responsibility in the Western philosophical tradition.|
|Abstract Moral emotions represent a key element of our human moral apparatus, influencing the link between moral standards and moral behavior. This chapter reviews current theory and research on moral emotions.|
|Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy||References and Further Reading 1. Metaethics The term "meta" means after or beyond, and, consequently, the notion of metaethics involves a removed, or bird's eye view of the entire project of ethics.|
First, there is a control condition: That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action or possess the trait—it cannot be compelled externally. Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: Aristotle aims to identify the conditions under which it is appropriate to praise or blame an agent, but it is not entirely clear how to understand the pivotal notion of appropriateness in his conception of responsibility.
There are at least two possibilities: These two possibilities may be characterized in terms of two competing interpretations of the concept of moral responsibility: While Aristotle argued against a version of fatalism On Interpretation, ch.
Causal determinism is the view that everything that happens or exists is caused by sufficient antecedent conditions, making it impossible for anything to happen or be other than it does or is. One variety of causal determinism, scientific determinism, identifies the relevant antecedent conditions as a combination of prior states of the universe and the laws of nature.
Another, theological determinism, identifies those conditions as being the nature and will of God. It seems likely that theological determinism evolved out of the shift, both in Greek religion and in Ancient Mesopotamian religions, from polytheism to belief in one sovereign God, or at least one god who reigned over all others.
The doctrine of scientific determinism can be traced back as far as the Presocratic Atomists 5th cent.
BCEbut the difference between it and the earlier fatalistic view seems not to be clearly recognized until the development of Stoic philosophy 3rd. If fatalism is true, then human deliberation, choice, and action are completely otiose, for what is fated will transpire no matter what one chooses to do.
In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way Irwin Since the Stoics, the thesis of causal determinism, if true, and its ramifications, have taken center stage in theorizing about moral responsibility.
During the Medieval period, especially in the work of Augustine — and Aquinas —reflection on freedom and responsibility was often generated by questions concerning versions of theological determinism, including most prominently: During the Modern period, there was renewed interest in scientific determinism—a change attributable to the development of increasingly sophisticated mechanistic models of the universe culminating in the success of Newtonian physics.
The possibility of giving a comprehensive explanation of every aspect of the universe—including human action—in terms of physical causes became much more plausible.Moral reasoning, also known as moral development, is a study in psychology that overlaps with moral philosophy.
Children can make moral decisions about what is right and wrong from a young age; this makes morality fundamental to the human condition. The history of reflection on moral responsibility demonstrates that how one interprets the concept of moral responsibility strongly influences one's overall account of moral responsibility.
For example, those who accept the merit-based conception of moral responsibility have tended to be incompatibilists. Mind perception entails ascribing mental capacities to other entities, whereas moral judgment entails labeling entities as good or bad or actions as right or wrong. We suggest that mind perception is the essence of moral judgment.
In particular, we suggest that moral judgment is rooted in a. – The paper introduces Kant's rich but little‐known moral psychology into the discussion of criminal psychology, bringing a different angle to topics such as motivation and responsibility that are primary areas of focus for psychologists, criminologists, and .
Moral emotions represent a key element of our human moral apparatus, influencing the link between moral standards and moral behavior.
This chapter reviews current theory and . Subject’s punishment judgments are of particular interest because several prominent theories in the attribution literature claim that punishment follows from the attribution of blame or moral responsibility to an agent (Fincham and Roberts, , Shultz et al., , Weiner, ).