Moral Cognition and Psychological Cognition: Intuitions Come First
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss19pp15-42Keywords:
moral intuitionism, dual-approach of cognition, interactive-dual approach, implicit cognition, psychological intuitionsAbstract
Psychological understanding is a required capacity for moral competence in the sense that understanding the intentions, beliefs, and interests of others is a critical input for evaluating the responsibilities involved in their behaviors and understanding, in turn, how to interact with them to achieve our purposes. For its part, interaction with others is at the heart of both capacities, since both are essential and closely related components of human social life. My aim in this paper, in relation to both assumptions, will be to highlight a structural similarity between ordinary psychological cognition and moral cognition, showing as certain differentiated types of explanations on one domain and the other allows to identify a theoretical framework consistent that, in turn, it can account for the relationships between the two. For this, I will refer first, synthetically, to the Social Intuitionist Model (MIS) of J. Haidt (2001), as it exemplifies a non-classical and dual approach to moral cognition in which moral intuitions play a more basic role than reasons. In the field of psychological cognition, I will refer with more detail to the interactive or second-person approach, enriched by the dual approach to cognition, in particular by the proposals on implicit or “minimal” varieties of mental attribution. In this context, I will identify the so-called expressive behaviors: their nature and role in human behavior and interactions, and their significance as the evidential basis for psychological understanding. They constitute the primary objects of psychological intuitions. I hope to show that expressive signals are “readable” through the intuitive abilities that detect them and understand their psychological significance in efficient ways. Having exposed the theoretical affinities between the MIS and the interactive-dual approach, I will emphasize that, just as for the first, moral intuitions come first, and reasons later, also for the interactive-dual approach of psychological understanding, psychological intuitions come first, and reasons later.
References
Apperly, I. A., Butterfill, S. A. (2009). Do humans have two systems to track beliefs and belief-like states? Psychological Review, 116, 953-970.
Apperly, I. A. (2011). Mindreaders. The cognitive basis of “theory of mind”. Hove: Psychology Press.
Apperly, I.A. (2013). Can theory of mind grow up? Mindreading in adults, its implications for the development and neuroscience of mindreading. In S. Baron Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, M.V. Lombardo (Eds.), Understanding Other Minds. Perspectives from the Developmental Social Neuroscience, pp. 72-92. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butterfill, S. A., Apperly, I. A. (2013). How to construct a minimal theory of mind, Mind & Language, 28, 606-637.
Butterfill, S. A. (2013). Interacting mindreaders, Philosophical Studies, 165(3), 841-863.
Brownstein, M. (2018). The Implicit Mind. Cognitive Architecture, The Self, and Ethics. Oxford: OUP.
Bruce, V., Young, A. (2012). Face perception. New York: Psychology Press.
Cameron, C. D., Payne, B. K., Knobe, J. (2010). Do theories of implicit race bias change moral judgments? Social Justice Research, 23, 272-289.
Castro, V. F. (2017). The expressive function of folk psychology. Unisinos Journal of Philosophy, 18(1), 36-46.
Cohnitz, D., Haukioja, J. (2015). Intuitions in Philosophical Semantics. Erketnnis, 80(3), 617-641.
Cushman, F., Young, L., Greene, J. D. (2010). Multi-system Moral Psychology, In Doris, J. M. and the Moral Psychology Research Group (Eds.), The Moral Psychology Handbook, pp. 47-71. Oxford: OUP.
De Cruz, H. (2015). Where philosophical intuitions come from? Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 93(2), 233-249.
Di Jaegher, H., Di Paolo, E., Gallagher, S. (2010). Can social interaction constitute social cognition? Trends in Cognitive Science, 14(10), 441-447.
Frankish, K., Evans, J. (2009). The duality of mind: An historical perspective. In J. Evans, & K. Frankish (Eds.), In Two minds: Dual processes and beyond, pp. 1-29. Oxford: OUP.
Frankish, K. (2010). Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass, 5/10, 914-926.
Gallagher, S., Hutto, D. (2008). Understanding Others through Primary Interaction. In J. Zlatev et al. (Eds.), The Shared Mind: Perspectives on Intersubjectivity, pp. 17-38. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Pub.
Glöckner, A., Witteman, C. (2010). Beyond dual-process models: a categorization of processes underlying intuitive judgements and decision making. Thinking and Reasoning, vol. 16(1), 1-25.
Gray, K.., Young, L., Waytz, A. (2012). Mind Perception Is the Essence of Morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 101-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.651387
Green, M. (2007). Self-Expression. Oxford: OUP.
Greenwald, A. G., Lai, C. K. (2020). Implicit Social Cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 419-445.
Gomila, A. (2001). La perspectiva de segunda persona: mecanismos mentales de la intersubjetividad. Contrastes, 6, 65-86.
Gopnik, A., Meltzoff, A. (1997). Words, Thoughts, and Theories. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Guglielmo, S., Monroe, A. E., Malle, B. F. (2009). At the Heart of Morality Lies Folk Psychology, Inquiry, 52(5), 449-466, https://doi.org/10.1080/00201740903302600
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-34.
Haidt, J., Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55-66.
Haidt, J. (2007). The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998-1002.
Haidt, J., Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists answer six questions about moral psychology. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology, Volume 2: The Cognitive Science of Morality: Intuition and Diversity, pp. 181-217. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Haidt, J., Kesebir, S. (2009). In the forest of value: Why moral intuitions are different from other kinds. In H. Plessner, C. Betsch, T. Betsch (Eds.) A new look on intuition in judgment and decision making, pp. 209-229. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind. Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: First Vintage Book Ed.
Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology for the twenty-first century. Journal of Moral Education, 42(3), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2013.817327
Heyes, C. (2014). Submentalizing: I am not really reading your mind. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 131-143.
Holroyd J., Scaife, R., Stafford, T. (2017). What is implicit bias? Philosophy Compass, 12(10), e12437.
Hume, D. (1739/1978). A Treatise of Human Nature. New York: Oxford University Press.
Isern-Mas, C., Gomila, A. (2020). Naturalizing Darwall´s Second Person Standpoint, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54: 785-804.
Kant, I. (1785/1959). Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Macmillan.
Knobe, J. (2004). Intention, Intentional Action and Moral Considerations. Analysis, 64, 181-187.
Knobe, J. (2005). Theory of Mind and Moral Cognition: Exploring the Connections. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9(8), 357-359.
Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: a case study in the uses of folk psychology. Philosophical Studies, 130, 203-231.
Kovács, Á. M., Téglás, E., Endress, A. D. (2010). The social sense: Susceptibility to others’ beliefs in human infants and adults, Science, 330,1830-1834.
Leslie, A. M. (1994). Pretending and believing: Issues in the theory of ToMM. Cognition, 50, 211-238.
McGahhey, M., Van Leeuwen, N. (2018). Interpreting Intuitions. In J. Kirsch and P. Pedrini (Eds.), Third Person, Self-Knowledge and Self-Interpretation, and Narrative, pp. 73-98. Switzerland: Springer.
Machery, E. (2016). De-Freuding implicit attitudes. In M. Brownstein, J. Saul (Eds.), Implicit bias and philosophy, Vol. 1: Metaphysics and epistemology, pp.104-129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Malle, B. (2006). Intentionality, morality, and their relationship in human judgment. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 6, 87-113.
Nichols, S., Stich, S. P. (2003). Mindreading: An Integrated Account of Pretence, Self- Awareness, and Understanding Other Minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Payne, K. B., Cameron, C. D. (2010). Divided Minds, Divided Morals. How Implicit Social Cognition Underpins and Undermines our Sense of Social Justice. In B. Gawronski & B. Keith Payne (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications, pp. 445-462. New York: Guilford Press.
Pérez, D. I., Gomila, A. (2022). Social Cognition and the Second Person in Human Interaction. New York: Routledge.
Pettit, D., Knobe, J. (2009). The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind & Language, 24(5), 586-604.
Pretz, J. E. (2008). Intuition vs Analysis: Strategy and experiences in complex everyday solving problems. Memory & Cognition, 36(3), 554-566.
Pretz, J. E. (2011). Types of intuition: Inferential and holistic. In M. Sinclair (Ed.), Handbook of intuition research, pp. 17-27. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishers.
Pust, J. (2017). Intuition, Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.
Sauer, H. (2011). Social Intuitionism and the Psychology of Moral Reasoning. Philosophy Compass. 6/10, 708-72.
Saunders, L. F. (2009). Reason and Intuition in the Moral Life: A Dual-Process Account of Moral Justification. In J. St. B. T. Evans, K. Frankish (Eds.), Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond, pp. 335-354. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scotto, C. (2002). Interacción y atribución mental: la perspectiva de la segunda persona. Análisis Filosófico, 22(2), 135-151.
Sinclair, M. (2010). Misconceptions about intuition. Psychological Inquiry: An International Journal for the Advancement of the Psychological Theory, 21(4), 378-386.
Sinclair, M. (2011). An Integrated Framework of Intuition. In M. Sinclair (Ed.), Handbook of Intuition Research, pp. 3-16. Northampton, MA.: Edward Elgar Publ. Co.
Sinnott-Armstrong, W., Young, L., Cushman, F. (2010). Moral Intuitions. In Doris, J.M. and the Moral Psychology Research Group, pp. 246-271. The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford: OUP.
Schukraft, J. (2016). Carving Intuitions at its Joints, Metaphilosophy, 47(3), 1026-1068.
Spaulding, S. (2018). How We Understand Others: Philosophy and Social Cognition. New York: Routledge.
Spaulding, S. (2019). What is mindreading? WIREs Cognitive Science, e1593.
Strack, F., Deutsch, R. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220-247.
Tager-Flusberg, H., Sullivan, K. (2000). A componential view of theory of mind: Evidence from Williams syndrome. Cognition, 76, 59-89.
Thompson, V.A., Prowser Turner, J. A., Pennycook, G. (2011). Intuition, Reason, and Metacognition. Cognitive Psychology, 63(3), 107-40.
Uleman, J. S., Adil Saribay, S., Gonzalez, C. M. (2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329-360.
Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind perception. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(8), 383-388.
Young, L., Waytz, A. (2013). Mind attribution is for morality. In Baron-Cohen, S., Tager-Flusberg, H. y Lombardo, M. V., Understanding Other Minds. Perspectives of Developmental Social Neuroscience, pp. 93-103. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Zawidzki, T. (2013). Mindshaping. A New Framework for Understanding Human Social Cognition. Cambridge Mass: The MIT Press.
Zebrowitz, L.A. (2011). Ecological and Social Approaches to Face Perception. In: A. Calder, G. Rhodes, M. Johnson, J. Haxby (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Face Perception, pp. 31-50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
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).
