Is Deontology a Moral Confabulation?

Neuroethics 9 (1):1-13 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Joshua Greene has put forward the bold empirical hypothesis that deontology is a confabulation of moral emotions. Deontological philosophy does not steam from "true" moral reasoning, but from emotional reactions, backed up by post hoc rationalizations which play no role in generating the initial moral beliefs. In this paper, I will argue against the confabulation hypothesis. First, I will highlight several points in Greene’s discussion of confabulation, and identify two possible models. Then, I will argue that the evidence does not illustrate the relevant model of deontological confabulation. In fact, I will make the case that deontology is unlikely to be a confabulation because alarm-like emotions, which allegedly drive deontological theorizing, are resistant to be subject to confabulation. I will end by clarifying what kind of claims can the confabulation data support. The upshot of the final section is that confabulation data cannot be used to undermine deontological theory in itself, and ironically, if one commits to the claim that a deontological justification is a confabulation in a particular case, then the data suggests that in general deontology has a prima facie validity.
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MIHIDA-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2015-12-14
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.Kahneman, Daniel; Slovic, Paul & Tversky, Amos (eds.)

View all 38 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2015-12-01

Total views
393 ( #9,865 of 46,392 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
92 ( #6,864 of 46,392 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.