Talk:Moral psychology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
[edit] What ought to be covered?
Hello, I am interested in this subject and I am planning to expand this article, but i'm not sure what topics ought to be given coverage. I am familiar with Kohlburg's stages of moral development and evolutionary explanations for altruism such as inclusive fitness, and I can write sections on that. Philosophers like Marx and Hobbes ought to also have their views included. However, I am sure there are numerous other perspectives in this field that ought to be included. Any suggestions? CuttingEdge 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sorry, I am relatively new to this topic; but what does Marx and Hobbes have to do with Moral Psychology? I'm intrigued, to be honest.
-
- I might add to this entry. A fair bit if I have the time. Currently I'm drawing on Moral Psychology as my dissertation on the Neural Basis of Morality spilled over into this topic. I have with me a copy of Moral Psychology Volume 3: Neuroscience of Morality just recently published by SInnott-Armstrong. I am incredibly enthused by this avenue of empirical research into morality and will endeavour to commit prose to this entry.
-
- Topics for consideration: --79.64.19.54 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it a gross mis-characterization of the work philosophers do in this area to say that they "ignore" empirical data. Historically, most philosophers working on moral psychology have worked a priori instead of undertaking empirical research. This, however, is not ignoring the empirical: they couldn't successful propose a theory that is contrary to known experiential data. Further, with the current emergence of experimental philosophy as a movement, many philosophers are undertaking empirical research programs or paying close attention to publications in scientific journals on these matters. PubliusNemo April 28, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Resources for further edits.
With respect to resources and topics that might be considered for expanding this entry, here are a couple:
First, the other two books of the Sinnot-Armstrong series will likely be helpful, as well (as they cover different areas of the discussion).
Second, a wonderfully comprehensive book on pre-1996 Moral Psychology is Dan Lapsly's (1996) book entitled (...wait for it...) "Moral Psychology". This book actually provides many of the theories that I will try to list below.
Third, here is a list of major theories in the Moral Psychology Literature:
Jean Piaget's Genetic Epistemological Theory of moral development
Lawrence Kohlberg's Cognitive Developmental stage theory of moral development
Gus Blasi's "Self Theory" of Moral Development (see Blasi, 1981, 1984)
Eliot Turiel's "Domain Theory" (which suggests that we do not simply view the world in terms of morality, but also in terms of custom and personal preference)
Dan Lapsley's and Darcia Narvaez's Social Cognitive approach to morality
Jonathan Haidt's Social Intuitionist Model of moral judgment
Marc Hauser's linguistic analogy
I am planning on teaching a course on this in the Fall, and hope to add to this page when I get time, but I appreciate your willingness to get the page started. Rossford (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Philosophy and Moral Psychology
This article needs desperate elaboration. The claim that philosophers have ignored empirical data is misleading. For instance, Hume was a moral psychologist who did not ignore empirical data. Kant struggled to embrace both the empirical data and his normative intuitions. Aristotle employed empirical methods when investigating happiness (ask people what they think) and so forth.
I agree that a list of major theories would be helpful.
It might also be useful to discuss some of the issues that philosophers have thought were relevant: the role of emotions in moral judgments, motivational internalism and externalism, the normativity of feelings (issues of shame, survivor guilt, and so forth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.51.185 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
