Sentimental Rules: On the Natural Foundations of Moral Judgment

By Shaun Nichols. 2004

489 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Information Systems and Management, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f688160d5e432c0ff77ee25d2384bcd1c3406e51

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Joshua D. Greene
2. J. Cohen
3. J. Darley
4. Leigh E. Nystrom
5. Geoffrey P. Goodwin
6. Stephen Stich
7. David A Pizarro
8. Yoel Inbar

In Information Systems and Management

1. D. Krebs
2. Stephen Stich
3. Geoffrey P. Goodwin
4. J. Darley
5. Joshua D. Greene
6. J. Cohen
7. Leigh E. Nystrom
8. K. Lowenberg

In Social Psychology

1. Joshua D. Greene
2. J. Cohen
3. J. Darley
4. Stephen Stich
5. David A Pizarro
6. Yoel Inbar
7. D. Krebs
8. Geoffrey P. Goodwin

Citations in the corpus

• The Evolution of Morality (2015, background): “One study (Nichols and Folds-Bennett 2003; Nichols 2004) looked at young children’s responses concerning properties such as icky, yummy, and boring and compared them with their attitudes toward moral and aesthetic properties.”
• The Perceived Objectivity of Ethical Beliefs: Psychological Findings and Implications for Public Policy (2010, background): “This research has shown that both children and adults can distinguish ethical prescriptions from social conventions in terms of seriousness (Shantz 1982), alterability (Tisak and Turiel 1988), and dependence on cultural norms (Turiel 1978; Nichols and Folds-Bennett 2003; although both Nichols (2002”
• Consequences, Action, and Intention as Factors in Moral Judgments: An fMRI Investigation (2006, background): “The present study addresses core moral judgments of this kind (Nichols, 2004).”
• Harm, Affect, and the Moral/Conventional Distinction. (2007, background): “As we noted earlier, paralleling work by Haidt ( Haidt et al. , 1993 ; see also Greene & Haidt, 2002 ), Nichols (2002, 2004) has proposed that negative affect plays a central role in generating most of the components of the signature moral response.”
• The Folk Psychology of Free Will: Fits and Starts (2004, background): “Like Kant, children regard moral obligations as independent of external rule-givers and as generalizable (see Nichols, 2004 for discussion).”
• Folk Intuitions on Free Will (2006, background): “In recent work in moral psychology, several philosophers and psychologists have suggested that normal fluency with moral judgment depends on an affective competence (Blair 1995, Nichols 2004c, Prinz forthcoming).”
• Cognitive load selectively interferes with utilitarian moral judgment. (2008, background): “Traditional theories of moral development emphasize the role of controlled cognition in mature moral judgment (Kohlberg, 1969; Turiel, 1983), while a more recent trend emphasizes the role of intuitive or automatic emotional processes (Blair, 1995; Haidt, 2001; Mikhail, 2000; Nichols, 2002, 2004; P”
• Young Children Enforce Social Norms (2012, unknown): “As Nichols (2004) has argued, moral norms derive much of their normative influence on human behavior from the fact that, to some degree, they are in line with humans' natural aversion to harming others and natural attraction to helping others (see Warneken & Tomasello, 2009, for a review).”
• On Disgust and Moral Judgment (2011, background): “One possibility is that disgust exerts a moralizing influence only on behaviors for which there already exist non-moral proscriptive norms (e.g., smoking; Nichols, 2004).”