Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Rationalization in Philosophical and Moral Thought.Eric Schwitzgebel & Jonathan Ellis - 2017 - In Jean-François Bonnefon & Bastien Trémolière (eds.), Moral Inferences. New York, NY: Routledge.
    Rationalization, in our intended sense of the term, occurs when a person favors a particular conclusion as a result of some factor (such as self-interest) that is of little justificatory epistemic relevance, if that factor then biases the person’s subsequent search for, and assessment of, potential justifications for the conclusion. Empirical evidence suggests that rationalization is common in people’s moral and philosophical thought. We argue that it is likely that the moral and philosophical thought of philosophers and moral psychologists is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  • Actively open-minded thinking in politics.Jonathan Baron - 2019 - Cognition 188 (C):8-18.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   18 citations  
  • Two components of individual differences in actively open-minded thinking standards: myside bias and uncertainty aversion.Jonathan Baron - forthcoming - Thinking and Reasoning.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Distinct Profiles for Beliefs About Religion Versus Science.S. Emlen Metz, Emily G. Liquin & Tania Lombrozo - 2023 - Cognitive Science 47 (11):e13370.
    A growing body of research suggests that scientific and religious beliefs are often held and justified in different ways. In three studies with 707 participants, we examine the distinctive profiles of beliefs in these domains. In Study 1, we find that participants report evidence and explanatory considerations (making sense of things) as dominant reasons for beliefs across domains. However, cuing the religious domain elevates endorsement of nonscientific justifications for belief, such as ethical considerations (e.g., believing it encourages people to be (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Suspiciously Convenient Beliefs and the Pathologies of (Epistemological) Ideal Theory.Alex Worsnip - 2023 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 47:237-268.
    Public life abounds with examples of people whose beliefs—especially political beliefs—seem suspiciously convenient: consider, for example, the billionaire who believes that all taxation is unjust, or the Supreme Court Justice whose interpretations of what the law says reliably line up with her personal political convictions. After presenting what I take to be the best argument for the epistemological relevance of suspicious convenience, I diagnose how attempts to resist this argument rest on a kind of epistemological ideal theory, in a sense (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Methodological Usefulness of Deep Disagreement.Steven W. Patterson - 2015 - Cogency: Journal of Reasoning and Argumentation 6 (2).
    In this paper I begin by examining Fogelin’s account of deep disagreement. My contention is that this account is so deeply flawed as to cast doubt on the possibility that such deep disagreements actually happen. Nevertheless, I contend that the notion of deep disagreement itself is a useful theoretical foil for thinking about argumentation. The second part of this paper makes this case by showing how thinking about deep disagreements from the perspective of rhetoric, Walton-style argumentation theory, computation, and normative (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Political Machines: Ethical Governance in the Age of AI.Fiona J. McEvoy - 2019 - Moral Philosophy and Politics 6 (2):337-356.
    Policymakers are responsible for key decisions about political governance. Usually, they are selected or elected based on experience and then supported in their decision-making by the additional counsel of subject experts. Those satisfied with this system believe these individuals – generally speaking – will have the right intuitions about the best types of action. This is important because political decisions have ethical implications; they affect how we all live in society. Nevertheless, there is a wealth of research that cautions against (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Judging the Goring Ox: Retribution Directed Toward Animals.Geoffrey P. Goodwin & Adam Benforado - 2015 - Cognitive Science 39 (3):619-646.
    Prior research on the psychology of retribution is complicated by the difficulty of separating retributive and general deterrence motives when studying human offenders . We isolate retribution by investigating judgments about punishing animals, which allows us to remove general deterrence from consideration. Studies 2 and 3 document a “victim identity” effect, such that the greater the perceived loss from a violent animal attack, the greater the belief that the culprit deserves to be killed. Study 3 documents a “targeted punishment” effect, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations