Cargando…
How to Measure Moral Realism
In recent years an increasing number of psychologists have begun to explore the prevalence, causes and effects of ordinary people’s intuitions about moral realism. Many of these studies have lacked in construct validity, i.e., they have failed to (fully or exclusively) measure moral realism. My aim...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Netherlands
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132410/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30220945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13164-018-0401-8 |
_version_ | 1783354315525586944 |
---|---|
author | Pölzler, Thomas |
author_facet | Pölzler, Thomas |
author_sort | Pölzler, Thomas |
collection | PubMed |
description | In recent years an increasing number of psychologists have begun to explore the prevalence, causes and effects of ordinary people’s intuitions about moral realism. Many of these studies have lacked in construct validity, i.e., they have failed to (fully or exclusively) measure moral realism. My aim in this paper accordingly is to motivate and guide methodological improvements. In analysis of prominent existing measures, I develop general recommendations for overcoming ten prima facie serious worries about research on folk moral realism. G1 and G2 require studies’ answer choices to be as metaethically comprehensive as methodologically feasible. G3 and G4 prevent fallacious inferences from intuitions about related debates. G5 and G6 limit first-order moral and epistemic influences. G7 address studies’ instructions. And G8 and G9 suggest tests of important psychological presuppositions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6132410 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer Netherlands |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61324102018-09-14 How to Measure Moral Realism Pölzler, Thomas Rev Philos Psychol Article In recent years an increasing number of psychologists have begun to explore the prevalence, causes and effects of ordinary people’s intuitions about moral realism. Many of these studies have lacked in construct validity, i.e., they have failed to (fully or exclusively) measure moral realism. My aim in this paper accordingly is to motivate and guide methodological improvements. In analysis of prominent existing measures, I develop general recommendations for overcoming ten prima facie serious worries about research on folk moral realism. G1 and G2 require studies’ answer choices to be as metaethically comprehensive as methodologically feasible. G3 and G4 prevent fallacious inferences from intuitions about related debates. G5 and G6 limit first-order moral and epistemic influences. G7 address studies’ instructions. And G8 and G9 suggest tests of important psychological presuppositions. Springer Netherlands 2018-06-01 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6132410/ /pubmed/30220945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13164-018-0401-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Article Pölzler, Thomas How to Measure Moral Realism |
title | How to Measure Moral Realism |
title_full | How to Measure Moral Realism |
title_fullStr | How to Measure Moral Realism |
title_full_unstemmed | How to Measure Moral Realism |
title_short | How to Measure Moral Realism |
title_sort | how to measure moral realism |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132410/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30220945 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13164-018-0401-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT polzlerthomas howtomeasuremoralrealism |