“Women Like Me Are Bad at Math”: The Psychological Functions of Negative Self‐Stereotyping

The impact of negative stereotypes can be harmful, and as a result, stigmatized targets are often motivated to deny their accuracy. However, at times, targets of even the most unflattering stereotypes embrace them as valid. Early stigma researchers conceptualized this self‐stereotyping as a form of internalized self‐hatred. However, within the last few decades, stigma researchers have challenged this notion. This more contemporary approach asserts that there are situations where endorsing negative stereotypes can actually be of use to those who are targeted by them. For instance, endorsing negative self‐stereotypes can be used to help justify the status quo, fulfill assimilation and differentiation needs, and protect against personal and social threats. The purpose of the present paper is to review both traditional and contemporary explanations for the causes and consequences of negative self‐stereotyping. In doing so, we highlight strengths and limitations within the self‐stereotyping literature and suggest future directions for research.     

Differentiating Diversities: Moral Diversity Is Not Like Other Kinds1

Diversity is widely celebrated in American society. But from a social psychological point of view, diversity ought to cause a number of problems, such as divisiveness and conflict. A resolution of this paradox is proposed: There are several kinds of diversity, with different profiles of costs and benefits. In particular, moral diversity is identified as being problematic and even self‐contradictory. Three studies of attitudes and desires for interaction among college students confirmed that moral diversity reduces desires for interaction more than does demographic diversity, and that both kinds of diversity are valued more in a classroom than in other social settings. These findings have important implications for discussions of diversity, multiculturalism, affirmative action, identity politics, and immigration policy.     

Mathematics,Morality, and Self‐Effacement

I argue that certain species of belief, such as mathematical, logical, and normative beliefs, are insulated from a form of Harman‐style debunking argument whereas moral beliefs, the primary target of such arguments, are not. Harman‐style arguments have been misunderstood as attempts to directly undermine our moral beliefs. They are rather best given as burden‐shifting arguments, concluding that we need additional reasons to maintain our moral beliefs. If we understand them this way, then we can see why moral beliefs are vulnerable to such arguments while mathematical, logical, and normative beliefs are not—the very construction of Harman‐style skeptical arguments requires the truth of significant fragments of our mathematical, logical, and normative beliefs, but requires no such thing of our moral beliefs. Given this property, Harman‐style skeptical arguments against logical, mathematical, and normative beliefs are self‐effacing; doubting these beliefs on the basis of such arguments results in the loss of our reasons for doubt. But we can cleanly doubt the truth of morality.     

The Visual Guide to Morality: Vision as an Integrative Analogy for Moral Experience,Variability and Mechanism

Analogies help organize, communicate and reveal scientific phenomena. Vision may be the best analogy for understanding moral judgment. Although moral psychology has long noted similarities between seeing and judging, we systematically review the “morality is like vision” analogy through three elements: experience, variability and mechanism. Both vision and morality are experienced as automatic, durable and objective. However, despite feelings of objectivity, both vision and morality show substantial variability across biology, culture and situation. The paradox of objective experience and cultural subjectivity is best understood through constructionism, as both vision and morality involve the flexible combination of more basic ingredients. Specifically, both vision and morality involve a mechanism that demonstrates Gestalt, combination and coherence. The “morality is like vision” analogy not only provides intuitive organization and compelling communication for moral psychology but also speaks to debates in the field, such as intuition versus reason, pluralism versus universalism and modularity versus constructionism.     

Adoption is Not Abortion‐Lite

It is standardly taken for granted in the literature on the morality of abortion that adoption is almost always an available and morally preferable alternative to abortion — one that does the same thing so far as parenthood is concerned. This assumption pushes proponents of a woman's right to choose into giving arguments that are based almost exclusively around the physicality of pregnancy and childbirth. On the other side of the debate, the assumption that adoption is a real alternative seems to strengthen the contention that a woman who wishes to abort is morally deficient, whatever the status of the foetus: that she is selfish or short‐sighted in her refusal to bear the temporary physical burden of pregnancy. In this article, I will argue that adoption is not a genuine alternative to abortion. It does not ‘do the same thing’, even setting aside the physicality of pregnancy. I will show that on the most successful model of parental obligation — a causal account that formalises the distinction between parent: progenitor, and parent: carer — birth mothers and fathers remain obliged, life‐long, to their birth children even when the child is adopted out.     

XIV—Moral Non-Cognitivism and the Grammar of Morality

This paper investigates the linguistic basis for moral non-cognitivism, the view that sentences containing moral predicates do not have truth conditions. It offers a new argument against this view by pointing out that the view is incompatible with our best empirical theories about the grammatical encoding of illocutionary force potentials. Given that my arguments are based on very general assumptions about the relations between the grammar of natural languages and a sentence's illocutionary function, my arguments are broader in scope than the familiar semantic objections to non-cognitivism relating to the so-called Frege-Geach problem: even if a solution to the Frege-Geach problem has been found, my arguments still stand.     

Manipulating Morality: Third‐Party Intentions Alter Moral Judgments by Changing Causal Reasoning

The present studies investigate how the intentions of third parties influence judgments of moral responsibility for other agents who commit immoral acts. Using cases in which an agent acts under some situational constraint brought about by a third party, we ask whether the agent is blamed less for the immoral act when the third party intended for that act to occur. Study 1 demonstrates that third‐party intentions do influence judgments of blame. Study 2 finds that third‐party intentions only influence moral judgments when the agent's actions precisely match the third party's intention. Study 3 shows that this effect arises from changes in participants' causal perception that the third party was controlling the agent. Studies 4 and 5, respectively, show that the effect cannot be explained by changes in the distribution of blame or perceived differences in situational constraint faced by the agent.     

以德治国必须深入开展社会公德教育

本文通过社会公德的由来与发展的分析研究 ,针对我国社会公德的现状 ,根据社会公德的功能与以德治国之间的关系 ,提出了几点加强社会公德建设的对策性意见。     

Why Reasons Skepticism is Not Self‐Defeating

Abstract: Radical meta‐normative skepticism is the view that no standard, norm, or principle has objective authority or normative force. It does not deny that there are norms, standards of correctness, and principles of various kinds that render it possible that we succeed or fail in measuring up to their prerogatives. Rather, it denies that any norm has the status of commanding with objective authority, of giving rise to normative reasons to take seriously and follow its demands. Two powerful transcendental arguments challenge this view. First, skepticism is said to be self‐defeating: Settling what to accept, and in particular whether to accept skepticism, appears to be a reason‐guided enterprise. How can skeptics coherently support their view by citing reasons in their favor after they just rejected them throughout? Second, there is the practical‐deliberative version, most recently developed by David Enoch: We are essentially deliberative creatures. Yet deliberation appears to require that there are correct answers in the form of normative reasons to our practical questions. Thus confidence in the sensible nature of deliberation should inspire confidence in reasons. The essay undermines both transcendental arguments by demonstrating, first, how to support skepticism without deserting its tenets, and, second, how to deliberate in skeptical fashion.     

论西方主流伦理理论的前提错误——兼论道德无力症与冷漠症对医疗的影响

从“畏死的恐惧”出发重塑扎根生命的道德基础,即道德行为和“生-生”式的道德关系是人的本真需要,道德权威性的根据是人类生命共同体这一“内在永恒大我”和人的本真存在方式的需要。这拯救了道德相对主义,也使个体作为潜在的人类生命共同体而能以“与永恒相关的生命意义”推开恐惧。进而,道德行为是出于内在自由而达于实在的自由的。道德主体应具备的道德实践能力包括独立能力、通达能力和勇气。生存性境况中的原子式个体不具备道德实践能力,生命境况中的“超个体的个体”才有此能力。由此,人类道德无力症和道德冷漠症的根源是西方主流伦理理论的前提错误,即以原子式个体充任道德主体。它是医疗纠纷和暴力频发的原因。