東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Ethical Theory Meets Cognitive Scien...

Suhler, Christopher Louis.

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Ethical Theory Meets Cognitive Science: A Naturalized Aristotelian Alternative to Principles-Based Ethics.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Ethical Theory Meets Cognitive Science: A Naturalized Aristotelian Alternative to Principles-Based Ethics./
Author:	Suhler, Christopher Louis.
Published:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2014,
Description:	223 p.
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-07(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International76-07A(E).
Subject:	Philosophy. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3683503
ISBN:	9781321577518

Ethical Theory Meets Cognitive Science: A Naturalized Aristotelian Alternative to Principles-Based Ethics.
Suhler, Christopher Louis.

Ethical Theory Meets Cognitive Science: A Naturalized Aristotelian Alternative to Principles-Based Ethics. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2014 - 223 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-07(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2014.

Contemporary philosophical ethics, despite its myriad theoretical disputes, is in broad agreement about the proper form and methods of ethical theorizing. The standard paradigm in contemporary ethics comprises, roughly, the following three assumptions: (1) ethics is concerned with the evaluation of particular actions; (2) the job of ethical theory is to devise principles that provide (necessary and sufficient) criteria for an action's being right/wrong; (3) to be adequate, such principles must broadly align with our intuitive verdicts about the status of particular actions.

ISBN: 9781321577518Subjects--Topical Terms:

516511
Philosophy.

Ethical Theory Meets Cognitive Science: A Naturalized Aristotelian Alternative to Principles-Based Ethics.
LDR:03356nmm a2200337 4500 001 2159249
005 20180622095237.5
008 190424s2014 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781321577518
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI3683503
035 $a (MiAaPQ)ucsd:14570
035 $a AAI3683503
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Suhler, Christopher Louis. $3 3347116
245 1 0 $a Ethical Theory Meets Cognitive Science: A Naturalized Aristotelian Alternative to Principles-Based Ethics.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2014
300 $a 223 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 76-07(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Patricia Churchland.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2014.
520 $a Contemporary philosophical ethics, despite its myriad theoretical disputes, is in broad agreement about the proper form and methods of ethical theorizing. The standard paradigm in contemporary ethics comprises, roughly, the following three assumptions: (1) ethics is concerned with the evaluation of particular actions; (2) the job of ethical theory is to devise principles that provide (necessary and sufficient) criteria for an action's being right/wrong; (3) to be adequate, such principles must broadly align with our intuitive verdicts about the status of particular actions.
520 $a Appealing as this view is in principle, it fails badly in practice. Proposed ethical theories inevitably succumb to counterexamples---cases in which they yield verdicts that conflict with our intuitive judgments. I argue that the ubiquity of counterexamples, and with it entrenched theoretical disagreement, stems from a mismatch between the psychological assumptions of the standard paradigm and actual human psychology. Our natural concepts are not structured in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, instead having a prototype structure in which there is no core set of features common to all and only members of the concept/category. Given this, it is unsurprising that there are always substantial gaps between ethical theories' verdicts and our intuitive judgments.
520 $a Drawing on convergent historical considerations, I argue that philosophy should return to an Aristotelian conception of ethics, according to which ethics is not a set of abstract principles, but rather a practical science analogous to medicine. However, just as we are not limited when practicing medicine to an ancient understanding of the natural world, so too in ethics should the naturalistic basis of our theory be a modern one. I therefore suggest that the best way forward for ethics is a marriage between (1) an Aristotelian view of ethics as a practical science concerned with proper human functioning and the habits of thought/action that constitute it and (2) a modern scientific understanding of the world, drawn principally from the cognitive and biological sciences. This approach allows us to avoid both the difficulties with principles-based approaches, and the sometimes outdated factual and normative aspects of Aristotle's own theory.
590 $a School code: 0033.
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
650 4 $a Behavioral sciences. $3 529833
650 4 $a Neurosciences. $3 588700
690 $a 0422
690 $a 0602
690 $a 0317
710 2 $a University of California, San Diego. $b Philosophy. $3 1670992
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 76-07A(E).
790 $a 0033
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2014
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3683503