Moral Psychology

by Valerie Tiberius

This is the first philosophy textbook in moral psychology, introducing students to a range of philosophical topics and debates such What is moral motivation? Do reasons for action always depend on desires? Is emotion or reason at the heart of moral judgment? Under what conditions are people morally responsible? Are there self-interested reasons for people to be moral? Moral A Contemporary Introduction presents research by philosophers and psychologists on these topics, and addresses the overarching question of how empirical research is (or is not) relevant to philosophical inquiry.

Genres: Psychology, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Textbooks

256 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2014

Reviews

[Muhamed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Among the best introductory books on any topic i have ever read. Absolutely loved the book. Comprehensive and comprehensible.

[مهدی محمدی · Rating 4 out of 5]

به‌عنوان کتاب مقدماتی دوستش داشتم.

[Indira Wolf · Rating 2 out of 5]

tbh this was a really hard and difficult book for school.

[Erik Nelson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book and great into to moral phycology (I preferred M Alfaro's a tiny bit, but this still 5 stars - it is terrific really).

-Did you help someone because you felt compassion? Because it reflected who you are? Because you believed it was the right thing to do? These motives—emotion, identity, reason—can all be morally meaningful. But they’re not the same

- What makes something morally right? Moral psychology helps us understand how those deeper motivations—duty, identity, empathy—can be harnessed to build a better life

- Good intro to both Jonathan Haidt (moral judgments begin with intuitive, emotional reactions. Reasoning usually comes later) and T.M. Scanlon (the right thing to do is whatever no one could reasonably reject)

- Good chapter on the Q: are we ever truly unselfish? / Psychological egoism / and Batson’s findings support what’s known as the empathy-altruism hypothesis

- Good chapter on the Q: can we not act on our desires? David Hume says no. Kant yes.