Switch to: Citations

Add references

You must login to add references.
  1. Looking Inward Together: Just War Thinking and Our Shared Moral Emotions.Valerie Morkevičius - 2017 - Ethics and International Affairs 31 (4):441-451.
    Just war thinking serves a social and psychological role that international law cannot fill. Law is dispassionate and objective, while just war thinking accounts for emotions and the situatedness of individuals. While law works on us externally, making us accountable to certain people and institutions, just war thinking affects us internally, making us accountable to ourselves. Psychologically, an external focus leads to feelings of shame, while an inward focus generates feelings of guilt. Philosophers have long recognized the importance of these (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence, and the future.John Mikhail - 2007 - Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (4):143 –152.
    Scientists from various disciplines have begun to focus attention on the psychology and biology of human morality. One research program that has recently gained attention is universal moral grammar (UMG). UMG seeks to describe the nature and origin of moral knowledge by using concepts and models similar to those used in Chomsky's program in linguistics. This approach is thought to provide a fruitful perspective from which to investigate moral competence from computational, ontogenetic, behavioral, physiological and phylogenetic perspectives. In this article, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   220 citations  
  • Why we forgive what can’t be controlled.Justin W. Martin & Fiery Cushman - 2016 - Cognition 147 (C):133-143.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   17 citations  
  • Just War Theory and the Laws of War as Nonidentical Twins.David Luban - 2017 - Ethics and International Affairs 31 (4):433-440.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Double Effect and the End‐Not‐Means Principle: A Response to Bennett.Thomas Cavanaugh - 1999 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (2):181–185.
    Proponents of double‐effect reasoning — relying in part on a distinction between intention and foresight — assert that it is worse intentionally to cause harm than to cause harm with foresight but without intention. They hold, for example, that terror bombing is worse than tactical bombing in so far as terror bombing is the intentional harming of non‐combatants while tactical bombing is not. In articulating the ethical relevance of the intended/foreseen distinction, advocates of double effect employ the Kantian end‐not‐means principle. (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Commonsense Morality and the Ethics of Killing in War: An Experimental Survey of the Israeli Population.Yitzhak Benbaji, Amir Falk & Yuval Feldman - 2015 - Law and Ethics of Human Rights 9 (2):195-227.
    Journal Name: The Law & Ethics of Human Rights Issue: Ahead of print.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Commonsense Morality and the Ethics of Killing in War: An Experimental Survey of the Israeli Population.Yitzhak Benbaji, Amir Falk & Yuval Feldman - 2015 - The Law and Ethics of Human Rights 9 (2):195-227.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas.Daniel M. Bartels & David A. Pizarro - 2011 - Cognition 121 (1):154-161.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   106 citations  
  • Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of double effect.Warren S. Quinn - 1989 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 18 (4):334-351.
    Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0048-3915%28198923%2918%3A4%3C334%3AAIACTD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-P..
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   170 citations