A new operationalization was used to model a schema-based approach to moral judgment, as well as compare it to predictions based on the Social Intuitionist Model. Judgments were made about the moral wrongness of killing different animals. At Time 1, only moral judgments were made. At Time 2 judgments were made again, with questions and scales relating to attributing morally relevant cognitive capacities also included; further, two randomized conditions varied the presentation order of the scales. Differences between Time 1 and 2 indicated a reversed perspective-taking effect, with animals of lower capacities rated less empathically at Time 2. Affective ratings and attributed capacities were compared as different predictors, showing attributed capacities being more powerful. A group comparison was also made between active animal rights proponents and non-proponents, showing differences on several factors. These and other findings are discussed with relation to the Social Intuitionist Model and a schema-based account of morality.

Submitted by JOSIANE SANTOS DE OLIVEIRA (josianeso) on 2018-04-23T14:18:43Z No. of bitstreams: 2 Tiaraju Molina Andreazza_.pdf: 1637018 bytes, checksum: cd926fa9e8d8aa8ed47d0ee55f318e84 (MD5) Tiaraju Molina Andreazza_.pdf: 1637018 bytes, checksum: cd926fa9e8d8aa8ed47d0ee55f318e84 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-04-23T14:18:43Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 Tiaraju Molina Andreazza_.pdf: 1637018 bytes, checksum: cd926fa9e8d8aa8ed47d0ee55f318e84 (MD5) Tiaraju Molina Andreazza_.pdf: 1637018 bytes, checksum: cd926fa9e8d8aa8ed47d0ee55f318e84 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018-03-14 / CAPES - Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / Como devemos conduzir nossas investigações morais para descobrir no que acreditar sobre questões morais? Como a plausibilidade de juízos, teorias e princípios morais deve ser avaliada? Como devemos tentar remover nossas dúvidas quando estamos incertos sobre o que é certo ou errado, bom ou mau, justo ou injusto? Este trabalho é um estudo do método do equilíbrio reflexivo, um método que fornece um modelo para a investigação moral que permitiria responder adequadamente questões como essas. Desde que esse método se tornou popular em filosofia moral após ter sido empregado e defendido por John Rawls em A Theory of Justice (1971), tem sido costumeiro interpretá-lo como um modelo coerentista para a investigação e justificação moral. De acordo com essa interpretação, a investigação moral adequada é em um processo no qual o indivíduo busca a maximização da coerência e a minimização da incoerência entre seus os juízos morais, os seus princípios morais e as suas crenças não morais relevantes, e cujo valor estaria em sua capacidade de garantir para a pessoa que o segue a aceitação de crenças morais que seriam epistemicamente justificadas por essas relações de coerência. Este estudo procura se contrapor a essa interpretação oferecendo em seu lugar um modelo intuicionista para o equilíbrio reflexivo. De acordo com esse modelo, a investigação moral adequada é um processo em que uma pessoa procura descobrir o que é congruente com suas intuições morais, ou o que é plausível à luz daquelas proposições morais que lhe parecem ser intuitivamente verdadeiras, e o valor desse processo estaria na sua capacidade de colocar uma pessoa em posição de aceitar proposições morais com base nas razões que ela tem para sustentá-las, o que é uma parte necessária da crença moral epistemicamente justificada. O estudo defende o equilíbrio reflexivo mostrando como ele, quando interpretado segundo uma abordagem intuicionista, pode ser visto em uso nas investigações morais de filósofos competentes, como John Rawls, Philippa Foot, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Peter Singer e outros. A tese defendida é que uma abordagem intuicionista, e apenas ela, responde satisfatoriamente às principais objeções dirigidas ao método por seus críticos. / How we should conduct our moral inquiry to discover what to believe about moral questions? How the plausibility of judgments, theories and moral principles should be evaluated? How we should try to remove our doubts when we are uncertain about what is right or wrong, good or bad, just or injust? This is a study about the reflective equilibrium, a method that offers a model for the moral inquiry which answers these questions. Since it became popular in moral philosophy following its use and defense by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971), the reflective equilibrium has been interpreted as a coherentist model for the moral inquiry and justification. According to this interpretation, the proper moral inquiry it is a process in which one tries to maximize coherence and minimize incoherence between his moral beliefs, moral principles and relevant nonmoral beliefs, a process that it is valuable by ensuring that the person who follows it ends up accepting moral beliefs which are epistemically justified by these coherence relations. This study intends to argue against this view developing in its place an intuitionist model for the reflection equilibrium. According to this model, the proper moral inquiry it is a process in which one tries to discover what its supported by his moral intuitions, or what is plausible from the point of view of those moral propositions that intuitively appears to be true, a process that it is valuable because it makes the person following it able to hold its moral beliefs based on the reasons that she has to believe them, which is a necessary part of the epistemically justified moral belief. The study argues in favor of this view by showing how the reflective equilibrium, when interpreted as a intuionist method, can be seen as the method used in the moral inquiry of competent moral philosophers, such as John Rawls, Philippa Foot, Judith Jarvis Thomson, Peter Singer and others. The study defends the thesis that only an intuitionist approach can deal with the main objections to the reflective equilibrium presented by its critics.

This is a review of what the currently dominant theories of moral decision-making are and where they derive from. While the introduction serves as a common ground to explain what moral decision-making is, the earlier parts of the thesis describe older traditionalist theories within the field,  theories of emotional decision-making, in the form of the somatic marker hypothesis, as well as critique of the older traditionalist theories through the social intuitionist model. Both of these two theories are explained as the foundation of the current theories of moral decision-making and after establishing a clear basis on what the currently dominant theories of moral decision-making are built on, said theories are introduced in the form of the dual-processing theory and the event-feature-emotion complexes which are thoroughly reviewed, explained in detail and serves as the core of the text. This is afterward followed by criticism as well as arguments in favor of both theories as well as criticisms from other researchers who disagree with the methodology which the theories of moral decision-making are conducted on. The essay reviews the current state of the field of moral decision-making which has been split up into two different approaches, the locationist approach and the constructionist approach. The essay concludes that there are terms which needs to be clarified in order for the field to move forward and studies to be made regarding the social implications of gut reactions in moral decision-making.

No description available.