The Emotional Dog Was a Glauconian Canine: The Reception of the Social Intuitionist Model, From the Neorocentric Paradigm to the Digital Paradigm
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss19pp63-83Keywords:
social intuitionist model, neurocentric paradigm, digital paradigm, social networksAbstract
In this article I analyze the academic reception of Jonathan Haidt’s seminal article The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. My thesis is that in the spheres of philosophy and psychology, this article was initially studied within the neurocentric paradigm, which dominated the field of scientific reflection in the fifteen years following its publication. This neurocentric reading established a specific interpretation of the text with several limitations. However, more recently a digital paradigm has emerged and come to prevail in academia, providing a new perspective from which to return to Haidt’s text. Indeed, this approach makes it possible to unravel elements of the famous article that in the neurocentric paradigm went unnoticed by researchers. Moreover, the digital paradigm manages to better integrate Haidt’s seminal article into his later work as a whole.
References
Alexander, R. (1987). The biology of moral systems. New York: Routledge.
Arias Maldonado, M. (2016). La democracia sentimental. Política y emociones en el siglo XXI. Barcelona: Página indómita.
Brady, W., Crockett, M. J., Van Bavel, J. (2020). The MAD Model of Moral Contagion: The role of Motivation, Attention and Design in the spread of moralized content online. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15, 978-1010.
Carr, N. (2010). The shallows: what the Internet is doing to our brains. New York: W.W. Norton.
Clarke, S. (2008). SIM and the city: rationalism in psychology and philosophy and Haidt’s account of moral judgment. Philosophical Psychology, 21(6), 799-820.
Cortina, A. (2007). Ética de la razón cordial. Oviedo: Nobel.
Cortina, A. (2011). Neuroética y neuropolítica. Madrid: Tecnos.
Crockett, M. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behavior, 1, 769-771.
Darwin, C. (2017). The descent of man. London: Penguin Classics.
Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Fine, C. (2006). Is the emotional dog wagging its rational tail, or chasing it? Philosophical Explorations, 9(1), 83-98.
Greene, J. (2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Moral Psychology Vol.3, pp. 38-79. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes. Emotion, reason, and the gap between us and them. London: Atlantic Books.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacom Press.
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.
Haidt, J. (2007). The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind. Why good people are divided by politics and religión. New York: Pantheon Books.
Haidt, J., Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. En S. Fiske, D. Gilbert y G. Lindzey (eds.). Handbook of social Psychology, pp. 797-832. Hobeken (NJ): Wiley.
Haidt, J., Rose-Stockwell, T. (2019). The dark psychology of social networks. Why it feels like everything is going haywire. The Atlantic, December. Last access 29th march 2021. Available in: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/
Han, B.-C. (2017). In the swarm: digital prospects. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Guiroux.
Kennett, J., Fine, C. (2009). Will the real moral judgment please stand up? Ethical theory and moral practice, 12(1), 77-96.
Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, thinking and cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mercier, H. (2011). What good is moral reasoning? Mind & Society, 10, 131-148.
Mercier, H., Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-111.
Miller, G. (2019). Virtue Signaling: Essays on Darwinian Politics & Free Speech. s.l.: Cambrian Moon.
Nisbett, R. E., Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental process, Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
Paxton, J., Greene, J. (2010). Moral reasoning: Hints and Allegations. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2(3), 511-527.
Pérez Zafrilla, P. J. (2013). Implicaciones normativas de la psicología moral: Jonathan Haidt y el desconcierto moral. Daimon, 59, 9-25.
Pérez Zafrilla, P. J. (2016). Is Deliberative Democracy an adaptive political theory? A critical analysis of Hugo Mercier’s Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. Análise Social, 51(3), 542-562.
Pérez Zafrilla, P. J. (2017a). Illusions and reality of public deliberation, Cogency, 9(1), 53-72.
Pérez Zafrilla, P. J. (2017b). Por qué fracasa la deliberación y cómo podemos remediarlo. Una alternativa ética al enfoque neurocientífico. Daimon. Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 70, 131-146.
Pérez Zafrilla, P. J. (2021). Polarización artificial: cómo los discursos expresivos inflaman la percepción de polarización política en internet. Recerca. Revista de pensament i anàlisi, 22, in press.
Pizarro, D. A., Bloom, P. (2003). The intelligence of the Moral intuitions: comment on Haidt (2001). Psychological Review, 110(1), 193-196.
Roskies, A. (2002). Neuroethics for the new millenium. Neuron, 35, 21-23.
Saltzstein, H. D. y Kasachkoff, T. (2004). Haidt’s moral intuitionist theory: A psychological and philosophical critique. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 273-282.
Tosi, J., Warmke, B. (2016). Moral grandstanding. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 44(3), 197-217.
Véliz, C. (2020). Privacy is power. London: Transword.
Zajonc, R.B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151-175.
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2022-06-10 (3)
- 2022-05-30 (2)
- 2022-05-30 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication, with the work after publication simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 International) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
