CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 375Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryEthics in Business and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethics

Greene, Joshua D.·2014·Ethics
DOI 10.1086/675875
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this article I explain why cognitive science (including some neuroscience) matters for normative ethics. First, I describe the dual-process theory of moral judgment and briefly summarize the evidence supporting it. Next I describe related experimental research examining influences on intuitive moral judgment. I then describe two ways in which research along these lines can have implications for ethics. I argue that a deeper understanding of moral psychology favors certain forms of consequentialism over other classes of normative moral theory. I close with some brief remarks concerning the bright future of ethics as an interdisciplinary enterprise.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/675875

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 62 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Greene Joshua, 2013, Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap between Us and Them ðNew York: Penguin Press
  2. One, what, exactly, is "dual
  3. Gazzaniga Michael, 2008, Mangun
  4. Greene Joshua, 2007, Moral Psychology, 3
  5. Parfit Derek, 2011, On What Matters ðNew York: Oxford University Press
  6. Foot Phillipa, 1967, Oxford Review, 5, 5
  7. Wharton Sophie R., 2011, Thou Shalt versus Thou Shalt Not: The Neural Processes Underlying Decisions to Help versus Decisions to Avoid Doing Harm
  8. Secret Joke of Kant's Soul
  9. They, counterintuitive
  10. Musen Jay, 2010, The Moral Psychology of Obligations to Help Those in Need
  11. Nichols Shaun, 2007, Nos, 41, 663
  12. Weathers Helen, February 17, 2008.
  13. For, we do not believe that their behavior will damage them or others psychologically, promote immoral behavior more generally, and so on. One might object that this "no additional reason
  14. Greene, Secret Joke of Kant's Soul
  15. John, 2007, Moral Psychology, 2, 303
  16. rubber bullets
  17. Nietzsche Friedrich, 1974, The Gay Science ð1882
  18. Cushman Fiery A., 2011, The Social Psychology of Morality, ed. Mario Mikulincer and Philip R. Shaver ðWashington
  19. Sidgwick Henry, 1907, The Methods of Ethics

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Greene, J. D.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Greene, Joshua D.
ORCID
Greene, Joshua D.
Venue
Ethics
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Published
2014-07
Volume
124
Issue
4
Pages
695-726
ISSN
  • 0014-1704 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-297X
DOI
10.1086/675875
OpenAlex
W1974538016
Cited by
375
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 50 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 1
FWCI
14.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Ethics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
cognitive science of morality, neuroscience of morality, dual-process theory, moral judgment, moral psychology, consequentialism, normative ethics, interdisciplinary ethics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review