DOCSLIB.ORG

A Critical Analysis of Moral Nativism

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Critical Analysis of Moral Nativism The Foundations of Human Morality: A Critical Analysis of Moral Nativism by Nalini Elisa Ramlakhan A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario ©2011 Nalini Elisa Ramlakhan Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-87787-6 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-87787-6 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada ii Abstract The aim of this paper is to determine the plausibility of moral nativism by examining and analyzing three main components of moral nativism, the poverty of moral stimulus argument, which is the first part of the Linguistic Analogy, moral dumbfounding, which is intertwined with, but separate from, the Linguistic Analogy, and the second part of the Linguistic Analogy, the Principles and Parameters approach. After analyzing the arguments in favour of moral nativism, I argue that these three components of moral nativism are problematic and lack support. I argue that if moral acquisition can be adequately explained by a nonnativist account, then there are grounds for rejecting both moral nativism and the proposal that there are universal moral domains that guide moral decision-making. This paper aims to point out the problems associated with moral nativism that many nativists overlook, do not address in their work, or do not consider problematic for their position, and argues that the inability to prove that nonnativist theories are inadequate or insufficient in accounting for moral acquisition and moral decision­ making weakens the nativist position. In an attempt to dismiss moral nativism as implausible, I provide three alternative nonnativist accounts of moral decision-making that plausibly account for moral acquisition and variation in moral decision-making across cultures and within cultures, as well as the emergence, maintenance, and transmission of moral norms. iii Acknowledgements I would like to begin by thanking Dr. Andrew Brook for supervising my thesis and for all of his support. Having Dr. Brook as a supervisor and working with him on this project has been a delightful experience, and I am grateful to Dr. Brook for all of his advice, comments, and time that was put into this project. Many thanks, Dr. Brook. I would also like to thank Dr. Heidi Maibom, and Dr. Christopher Burn for agreeing to be on my defense committee. I would especially like to thank Dr. David Matheson for all of his insightful comments, support, and guidance throughout the duration of this project. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents who have been supportive and encouraging throughout the entirety of this project. Thank you for always pushing me to do the best that I can and for supporting me throughout this project. Without your love and support, this project would not have been possible. iv Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Introduction 1 Chapter 1 - An Introduction to Moral Nativism 10 Chapter 2 - Problems with Moral Nativism 49 Chapter 3 - Alternatives to Moral Nativism 85 Conclusion 116 Bibliography 118 1 Introduction Questions pertaining to the nature of moral judgments are long standing in the field of philosophy, and although philosophy has progressed significantly throughout the years, these questions remain debated among philosophers. In fact, new questions have been raised in an attempt to understand the nature of moral judgments. This paper is concerned with analyzing the following question: are humans innately equipped with moral principles that account for moral acquisition and moral decision-making, or is morality acquired solely through environmental factors? Those who favour the view that humans are equipped with moral principles that account for moral acquisition argue that certain moral principles are innate, and cultures vary in moral decision-making depending on how the social environment shapes these principles. This view is known as the theory of moral nativism, where nativism is the term used for an innate endowment. Those arguing in favour of moral nativism tend to liken innate moral principles to innate language principles, where universal grammar is innate, but which language we speak is dependent upon which society we are raised in. These arguments take the position of Rawls's Linguistic Analogy, where he argued in ,4 Theory of Justice (1971) that we have a moral grammar that is analogous to Chomsky's Principles and Parameters theory in language. Those arguing in favour of the view that moral acquisition is acquired through sociocultural and environmental factors hold a nonnativist view of morality. Proponents of this theory do not contest the fact that humans have a capacity to act in a moral manner or to think morally. Rather, they take issue with the claim that a moral faculty or a universal moral grammar is needed to explain moral acquisition. It is important to note that nativism is simply another term for innatism. While it seems more commonsensical to use the term innatism when speaking of an innate endowment, 2 nativism, at least in the literature of moral psychology, has become the common term for innatism. Thus, I use the term nativism throughout this paper to refer to innatism, and use the terms interchangeably. There are a significant number of scholars who have contributed, and continue to contribute, to this area in moral psychology. Biologist Marc Hauser, philosopher Susan Dwyer, and psychologist Jonathan Haidt are moral nativists who provide stimulating and persuasive arguments in favour of moral nativism. Philosophers Jesse Prinz, Chandra Sripada, and Daniel Dennett1 are advocates of nonnativist theories of morality, and provide accounts of moral acquisition that rely heavily on sociocultural and environmental factors. While there are many scholars who have contributed to this debate, this paper will focus mainly on the works of the scholars mentioned. The aim of this paper is to determine the plausibility of moral nativism by examining and analyzing three main components of moral nativism, the poverty of moral stimulus argument, which is the first part of the Linguistic Analogy, moral dumbfounding, which is intertwined with, but separate from, the Linguistic Analogy, and the second part of the Linguistic Analogy (LA hereafter), the Principles and Parameters approach. After analyzing the arguments in favour of moral nativism, I argue that these three components of moral nativism are problematic and lack support. I argue that if moral acquisition can be adequately explained by a nonnativist account, then there are grounds for rejecting both moral nativism and the proposal that there are universal moral domains that guide moral decision-making. This paper aims to point out the problems associated with moral nativism that many nativists overlook, do not address in their work, or do not consider problematic for their position, and argues that the inability to prove that nonnativist theories are inadequate or insufficient in accounting for moral acquisition and moral decision- 3 making weakens the nativist position. In an attempt to dismiss moral nativism as implausible, I provide three alternative nonnativist accounts of moral decision-making that plausibly account for moral acquisition and variation in moral decision-making across cultures and within cultures, as well as the emergence, maintenance, and transmission of moral norms. In order to defend the claim that moral nativism is problematic, I begin Chapter I with an explication of moral nativist theories, where I provide a detailed account of what moral nativism consists of and introduce the theories put forth by Hauser, Dwyer, and Haidt. In particular, the poverty of moral stimulus argument, moral
Load more

Recommended publications
  • DOI: 10.1126/Science.1137651 , 998 (2007); 316 Science Jonathan
    The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology Jonathan Haidt Science 316, 998 (2007); DOI: 10.1126/science.1137651 This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. If you wish to distribute this article to others, you can order high-quality copies for your colleagues, clients, or customers by clicking here. Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by following the guidelines here. The following resources related to this article are available online at www.sciencemag.org (this infomation is current as of February 15, 2012 ): Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online version of this article at: on February 15, 2012 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/998.full.html Supporting Online Material can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2007/05/15/316.5827.998.DC1.html A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites related to this article can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/998.full.html#related This article has been cited by 84 article(s) on the ISI Web of Science www.sciencemag.org This article has been cited by 35 articles hosted by HighWire Press; see: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/998.full.html#related-urls This article appears in the following subject collections: Psychology http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/psychology Downloaded from Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.
    [Show full text]
  • Gene-Culture Coevolution, Group Selection, and the Evolution of Cooperation
    EC_2018_A12 Gene-Culture coevolution, group selection, and the evolution of Cooperation The Evolution of Cooperation How can altruism / cooperation evolve? 1 EC_2018_A12 Levels of Selection "although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe (...) an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.” (C. Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871) Levels of Selection Individuals (“basic” [Neo]Darwinism) Genes (“Selfish-gene” Sociobiology) Groups? Multilevel selection? Higher-level adaptations? Genetic Group Selection? “Naïve group selectionism”: The probability of survival of individual living things, or of populations, increases with the degree with which they harmoniously adjust themselves to each other and to their environment. This principle is basic to the concept of the balance of nature, orders the subject matter of ecology and evolution, underlies organismic and developmental biology, and is the foundation for all sociology. (Allee et al. 1949) “The good of the species” (Wynne-Edwards) 2 EC_2018_A12 Levels of Selection Migration, genetic drift, etc: Intergroup effects weaker than intragroup, interindividual selection. Intra x intergroup differences X Wilson DS & Wilson EO (2007) Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology Multi-level selection/ limits in kin selection theory/ “major transitions” Eusociality: Kin Selection X Individual selection + preadaptations. (communal nests) Nowak, Tarnita & Wilson, “The Evolution of Eusociality”, Nature 2010 (X Abbot et al [+100!], Nature 2011) “Major Transitions” in Evolution Maynard Smith & Szathmáry 1997 “Apart from the evolution of the genetic code, all these transitions involve the coming together of previously independent replicators, to cooperate in a higher-level assembly that reproduces as a single unit.” 3 EC_2018_A12 Natural selection & the evolution of cooperation Cooperation is needed for evolution to construct new levels of organization.
    [Show full text]
  • How People Think About Fairness and Why It Matters for Equitable Budgets
    How People Think About Fairness and Why It Matters for Equitable Budgets Jason Lakin May 2019 1. BACKGROUND Ideas about justice, fairness, altruism, and redistribution are at the core of the work we do around government budgets at the International Budget Partnership. Along with other global and national civil society organizations, we believe that tax and expenditure policies should allow everyone, and not just the rich, the opportunity to lead a dignified life. Yet the progressive policies necessary to yield such an outcome are perpetually contested and achieving them depends on significant support from the public. It is a foundational assumption of this paper that building support among a broader public for progressive policies is one among several important facilitating conditions for reform. Support for redistributive policies is partly kindled by self-interest – e.g., we might expect that it will come from those below the median in income (or wealth) who will benefit the most – but, in most cases, self-interest is not enough to motivate widespread support for redistribution. This is because either (1) the intended beneficiaries do not constitute a majority of the population, (2) despite constituting a majority, the beneficiaries do not support these policies for other reasons, or (3) even when the beneficiaries are a majority, the alliances needed to introduce and maintain these policies require support from smaller groups who have disproportionate power and influence over the political system and will not directly benefit from them. Thus, creating a moral case for fair budget policies – one that can galvanize a broad coalition – is integral to achieving progress.
    [Show full text]
  • What Disgust Does and Does Not Do for Moral Cognition Jared Piazzaa
    What Disgust Does and Does Not Do for Moral Cognition Jared Piazzaa, Justin F. Landyb, Alek Chakroffc Liane Youngd, Emily Wassermand a Lancaster University, Department of Psychology b University of Chicago Booth School of Business cCharlie Finance Co., San Francisco, CA dBoston College, Psychology Department 2 1. Introduction Disgust is typically characterized as a negative emotion associated with the rejection of distasteful or contaminating objects (Rozin and Fallon 1987). The physiological aspects of disgust involve nausea and loss of appetite, and the bodily expression of disgust includes behaviors (e.g., gagging, vomiting) designed to orally block or expel noxious substances (Ekman and Friesen 1971; Royzman, Leeman and Sabini 2008; Rozin, Haidt and McCauley 2008; Yoder, Widen and Russell 2016). The canonical elicitors of disgust are well documented: many people report feeling nauseous or sick at the sight or smell of oral contaminants (e.g., rotten food, bodily waste) and/or disease vectors (e.g., blood, skin maladies, sexual fluids, certain animals; Curtis, Aunger and Rabie, 2004; Haidt, McCauley and Rozin, 1994; Olatunji et al. 2007). It is uncontroversial that disgust can also be evoked in the context of a moral offense. What remains controversial is disgust’s role or relevance within a moral context. When Armin Meiwes, the Rotenburg Cannibal, was discovered to have eaten the severed penis of his voluntary victim, before killing him and consuming his flesh over the next ten months, the story of this crime undoubtedly aroused disgust (and horror) in many of us. The relevant question is not whether we felt disgust about this crime—for most of us, human penis is not on the menu, and the thought of Meiwes’ preferred cuisine is deeply distasteful.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origins of Faith; If Humans Are Hard-Wired to Be Moral, What Is the Point of Religion?
    Page 1 2 of 990 DOCUMENTS New Scientist September 1, 2007 The origins of faith; If humans are hard-wired to be moral, what is the point of religion? BYLINE: Helen Phillips SECTION: FEATURES; Cover Story; Pg. 32-36 LENGTH: 3094 words RELIGION occupies a strange position in the world today. Religious belief is as powerful as ever, yet religion is under attack, challenged by science and Enlightenment thought as never before. Critics like Richard Dawkins would have us believe that it is a delusion, and a dangerous one at that. He is one of many thinkers who are challenging the traditional view of religion as a source of morality. Instead, they argue that it provides a means for justifying immoral acts. Their views have recently been bolstered by evidence that morality appears to be hard-wired into our brains. It seems we are born with a sense of right and wrong, and that no amount of religious indoctrination will change our most basic moral instincts. Many biologists are not convinced by such radical views, however. Recent years have seen a flurry of activity by researchers who want to assess the effects of religion on human behaviour. It is a fiendishly difficult area for science, but they are starting to address the issue by looking at how religion might have evolved, what purpose it has served, and whether it really can make you a moral person - or an immoral one. As a result of this work a new view is emerging that challenges simplistic ideas about the link between religion and morality.
    [Show full text]
  • Jonathan Haidt Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion I
    Jonathan Haidt Moral Psychology and the Misunderstanding of Religion I study morality from every angle I can find. Morality is one of those basic aspects of humanity, like sexuality and eating, that can't fit into one or two academic fields. I think morality is unique, however, in having a kind of spell that disguises it. We all care about morality so passionately that it's hard to look straight at it. We all look at the world through some kind of moral lens, and because most of the academic community uses the same lens, we validate each other's visions and distortions. I think this problem is particularly acute in some of the new scientific writing about religion. When I started graduate school at Penn in 1987, it seemed that developmental psychology owned the rights to morality within psychology. Everyone was either using or critiquing Lawrence Kohlberg's ideas, as well as his general method of interviewing kids about dilemmas (such as: should Heinz steal a drug to save his wife's life?). Everyone was studying how children's understanding of moral concepts changed with experience. But in the 1990s two books were published that I believe triggered an explosion of cross-disciplinary scientific interest in morality, out of which has come a new synthesis—very much along the lines that E. O. Wilson predicted in 1975. The first was Antonio Damasio's Descartes' Error, in 1994, which showed a very broad audience that morality could be studied using the then new technology of fMRI, and also that morality, and rationality itself, were crucially dependent on the proper functioning of emotional circuits in the prefrontal cortex.
    [Show full text]
  • The Intelligence of the Moral Intuitions: Comment on Haidt (2001)
    Psychological Review Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 110, No. 1, 193–196 0033-295X/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.110.1.193 COMMENTS The Intelligence of the Moral Intuitions: Comment on Haidt (2001) David A. Pizarro and Paul Bloom Yale University The social intuitionist model (J. Haidt, 2001) posits that fast and automatic intuitions are the primary source of moral judgments. Conscious deliberations play little causal role; they are used mostly to construct post hoc justifications for judgments that have already occurred. In this article, the authors present evidence that fast and automatic moral intuitions are actually shaped and informed by prior reasoning. More generally, there is considerable evidence from outside the laboratory that people actively engage in reasoning when faced with real-world moral dilemmas. Together, these facts limit the strong claims of the social intuitionist model concerning the irrelevance of conscious deliberation. Within social psychology, the nineties was the decade of auto- when told a story in which there is consensual sex between adult maticity. Influential work from researchers such as Bargh (1994) siblings, many people (though not all) will insist that it is wrong, and Greenwald and Banaji (1995) inspired a host of research even though they cannot articulate their reasons for this view. documenting the unconscious nature of much of human beings’ Haidt argued that this research supports the more general conclu- social judgment and behavior. In addition, research over the sion that our moral judgments are not based on moral reasoning. past 20 years has added vastly to psychologists’ knowledge of We are sympathetic to many of the claims that Haidt (2001) emotion’s role in judgment and decision-making (e.g., Forgas, made.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to Jonathan Haidt's the Righteous Mind
    Journal of Public Deliberation Volume 15 Issue 3 Article 3 2019 Embedded Public Reasoning: A Response to Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind Michael J. DeMoor The King's University, Edmonton, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Political Theory Commons Recommended Citation DeMoor, Michael J. (2019) "Embedded Public Reasoning: A Response to Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind," Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 15 : Iss. 3 , Article 3. Available at: https://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol15/iss3/art3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Public Deliberation. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Public Deliberation by an authorized editor of Public Deliberation. Embedded Public Reasoning: A Response to Jonathan Haidt’s The Righteous Mind Abstract Jonathan Haidt is a moral psychologist whose influential book, The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion, explains the origins of our political disagreements. The aim of the book is to encourage understanding and civility in our public life. Deliberative democrats also have a significant stake in understanding the sources of our disagreements and see rational deliberation as the key to civility and democratic legitimacy. However, Haidt’s empirical studies give reasons to suggest that the “faith” of deliberative democrats in reasoning may be misplaced, particularly as that faith tends be inflected in terms of a “Kantian” moral psychology. This article analyzes four different explanatory “stories” that Haidt weaves together: (1) a “causal” evolutionary account of the development of morality; (2) a “causal” story about the psychological mechanisms explaining human action; (3) a “causal” story about the historical and cultural determinants of our political attitudes; and (4) a “normative” story about the grounds and justification of human action.
    [Show full text]
  • The Psychology of Moral Reasoning
    Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 3, No. 2, February 2008, pp. 121–139 The psychology of moral reasoning Monica Bucciarelli∗ Centro di Scienza Cognitiva and Dipartimento di Psicologia University of Turin Sangeet Khemlani and P. N. Johnson-Laird Department of Psychology Princeton University Abstract This article presents a theory of reasoning about moral propositions that is based on four fundamental principles. First, no simple criterion picks out propositions about morality from within the larger set of deontic propositions con- cerning what is permissible and impermissible in social relations, the law, games, and manners. Second, the mechanisms underlying emotions and deontic evaluations are independent and operate in parallel, and so some scenarios elicit emo- tions prior to moral evaluations, some elicit moral evaluations prior to emotions, and some elicit them at the same time. Third, deontic evaluations depend on inferences, either unconscious intuitions or conscious reasoning. Fourth, human beliefs about what is, and isn’t, moral are neither complete nor consistent. The article marshals the evidence, which includes new studies, corroborating these principles, and discusses the relations between them and other current theories of moral reasoning. Keywords: moral reasoning; deontic reasoning; intuitions; inferences; moral dilemmas. 1 Introduction principal psychological theories of how individuals make moral evaluations. We then describe the new theory. We Is it morally wrong to take a paper-clip from your office? present the evidence corroborating it, including some new Is it morally wrong to steal money from your co-worker? experimental results. Finally, we consider the general na- Is it morally wrong to stab your employer? In the ab- ture of reasoning about moral propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • The False Allure of Group Selection | Conversation | Edge 19/06/2012 16:34
    The False Allure Of Group Selection | Conversation | Edge 19/06/2012 16:34 To arrive at the edge of the world's knowledge, seek out the most complex and sophisticated minds, put them in a room together, and have them ask each other the questions they are asking themselves. Get Edge.org by Email Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012 HOME CONVERSATIONS ANNUAL QUESTION EVENTS NEWS LIBRARY ABOUT THE FALSE ALLURE OF GROUP SELECTION WHAT'S RELATED An Edge Original Essay People Steven Pinker [6.18.12] Steven Pinker Johnstone Family Professor, Department Of... Stewart Brand Founder, The Whole Earth Catalog; Co- founder, The... Conversations at Edge [+] A History of Violence Edge Master Class 2011 By Steven Pinker [9.27.11] Language and Human Nature A talk by Steven Pinker [9.30.09] The Stuff of Thought "The Experiment Marathon": A conversation [photo credit: Max Gerber] By Marcy Kahan, Steven Pinker [10.14.07] "I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always Preface to Dangerous Ideas surprised when I say I do not. After all, group selection sounds like a reasonable extension of By Steven Pinker [12.31.06] evolutionary theory and a plausible explanation of the social nature of humans. Also, the group selectionists tend to declare victory, and write as if their theory has already superseded a narrow, reductionist dogma that selection acts only at the level of genes. In this essay, I'll explain why I think Beyond Edge that this reasonableness is an illusion. The more carefully you think about group selection, the less sense Stevenpinker.com it makes, and the more poorly it fits the facts of human psychology and history." Books [+] STEVEN PINKER is a Harvard College Professor and Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology; Harvard University.
    [Show full text]
  • William James and Embodied Religious Belief
    contemporary pragmatism 15 (2018) 366-386 brill.com/copr William James and Embodied Religious Belief Tobias Tan Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge, West Road, Cambridge cb3 9bs, UK [email protected] Abstract Scholars have recently identified resemblances between pragmatist thought and con- temporary trends in cognitive science in the area of ‘embodied cognition’ or ‘4E cog- nition.’ In this article I explore these resemblances in the account of religious belief provided by the classical pragmatist philosopher William James. Although James’s psychology does not always parallel the commitments of embodied cognition, his in- sights concerning the role of emotion and socio-cultural context in shaping religious belief, as well as the action-oriented nature of such beliefs, resonate with embodied and embedded accounts of religious belief. James’s insights are readily extended in light of contemporary embodied cognition research to highlight the interdependency between religious belief of individuals and the cognitive scaffolding provided by em- bodied religious practices. Keywords William James – embodied cognition – religious belief – cognitive science of religion (csr) – ritual 1 William James on the Nature of Religious Belief In his essay ‘The Will to Believe’, William James sets out a case for religious belief.1 His primary antagonist, William Kingdon Clifford, argues that religious 1 William James, “The Will to Believe”, in The Will to Believe: And Other Essays in Popular Phi- losophy (New York: Dover, 1956), pp. 1–31. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/18758185-01503006Downloaded from Brill.com09/30/2021 05:46:25PM via free access <UN> William James And Embodied Religious Belief 367 belief ought to be shunned in the face of insufficient evidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Bibliography
    Bibliography Abbot, Patrick et al. 2011. “Inclusive Fitness Theory and Eusociality.” Nature (Brief Communications Arising) 471: E1-E4. Web. Albee, Ernest. 1897. “Hume’s Ethical System.” The Philosophical Review 6(4): 337- 355. ʊ. 1896. “The Relation of Shaftesbury and Hutcheson to Utilitarianism.” The Philo- sophical Review 5(1): 24-35. Aldridge, Alfred Owen. 1946. “A Preview of Hutcheson’s Ethics.” Modern Language Notes 61(3): 153-161. Alexander, Richard. 1987. The Biology of Moral Systems. NY: Aldine de Gruyter. ʊ. 1989. “Evolution of the Human Psyche.” The Human Revolution. Chris Stringer and Paul Mellars, eds. Edinburgh: U Edinburgh P. 455-513. ʊ. 1990. How Did Humans Evolve? Reflections on the Uniquely Unique Species. Ann Arbor, MI: U Michigan. Allchin, Douglas. 2009. “The Evolution of Morality.” Evo Edu Outreach 2: 590-601. Web. Alvard, Michael S. 2003. “The Adaptive Nature of Culture.” Evolutionary Anthropol- ogy 12: 136-149. Aristotle. 1952. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. W.D. Ross. The Works of Aristotle, vol- ume II. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Armstrong, Paul B. 2013. How Literature Plays with the Brain: The Neuroscience of Reading and Art. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UP. Aron, Elaine N. and Arthur Aron. 1997. “Sensory-Processing Sensitivity and Its Rela- tion to Introversion and Emotionality.” Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology 73(2): 345-368. Print. Austen, Jane. 1972. Northanger Abbey. 1818. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin. Austin, Michael. 2010. Introduction. Useful Fictions: Evolution, Anxiety, and the Origin of Literature. U Nebraska P. Web. Axelrod, Robert and William D. Hamilton. 1981. “The Evolution of Cooperation.” Science 211: 1390-1396. Baier, Annette.
    [Show full text]