The Nietzschean Self: Moral Psychology, Agency, and the Unconscious by Paul Katsafanas

Review of The Nietzschean Self: Moral Psychology, Agency, and the Unconscious by Paul Katsafana

Delineating The Moral Domain in Moral Psychology

The aim of this paper is to review current debate about the moral domain in the moral psychological literature. There is some vagueness in respect to the usage of the very concept of ‘morality’. This conceptual problem recently has been re-addressed by several authors. So far, there is little agreement, nobody seems to agree about how to delineate the moral domain from other ‘non-moral’ normative domains. Currently, there are several positions that disagree about the scope of morality, ranging from complete monists to complete pluralists. The paper will review these positions and will tentatively suggest further directions to test their claims. At this moment, there is no decisive evidence for either position

Śāntideva and the moral psychology of fear

Buddhists consider fear to be a root of suffering. In Chapters 2 and 7 of the Bodhicaryāvatāra, Śāntideva provides a series of provocative verses aimed at inciting fear to motivate taking refuge in the Bodhisattvas and thereby achieve fearlessness. This article aims to analyze the moral psychology involved in this transition. It will structurally analyze fear in terms that are grounded in, and expand upon, an Abhidharma Buddhist analysis of mind. It will then contend that fear, taking refuge, and fearlessness are complex intentional attitudes and will argue that the transition between them turns on relevant changes in their intentional objects. This will involve analyzing the object of fear into four aspects and 'taking refuge' as a mode of trust that ameliorates these four aspects. This analysis will also distinguish two modes of taking refuge and show the progressive role each might play in the transition from fear to fearlessness

Talents and Interests: A Hegelian Moral Psychology

One of the reasons why there is no Hegelian school in contemporary ethics in the way that there are Kantian, Humean and Aristotelian schools is because Hegelians have been unable to clearly articulate the Hegelian alternative to those schools’ moral psychologies, i.e., to present a Hegelian model of the motivation to, perception of, and responsibility for moral action. Here it is argued that in its most basic terms Hegel's model can be understood as follows: the agent acts in a responsible and thus paradigmatic sense when she identifies as reasons those motivations which are grounded in his or her talents and support actions that are likely to develop those talents in ways suggested by his or her interests

Ethics and Us: A Review of the Moral Psychology Field

The field of moral psychology is a field of growing interest as psychologists become more interested in the study of how people make decisions about right and wrong. Research from several different disciplines has contributed to the study of moral psychology, making it inherently interdisciplinary. Moral psychology finds its roots in philosophical theories, before finding its place in developmental psychology. More modern research includes contributions from anthropology, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and more. Future moral psychology research may discover more disciplines that can contribute to the research and explain the real-life implications of people’s moral systems. This paper traces the history of moral psychology research in a chronological review of the related literature. With several suggestions for future research, this review first presents an overview of the literature before providing ideas for the future of moral psychology research

Ethics and Us: A Review of the Moral Psychology Field

The field of moral psychology is a field of growing interest as psychologists become more interested in the study of how people make decisions about right and wrong. Research from several different disciplines has contributed to the study of moral psychology, making it inherently interdisciplinary. Moral psychology finds its roots in philosophical theories, before finding its place in developmental psychology. More modern research includes contributions from anthropology, evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and more. Future moral psychology research may discover more disciplines that can contribute to the research and explain the real-life implications of people’s moral systems. This paper traces the history of moral psychology research in a chronological review of the related literature. With several suggestions for future research, this review first presents an overview of the literature before providing ideas for the future of moral psychology research

What Can Philosophers Learn from Psychopathy?

Many spectacular claims about psychopaths are circulated. This contribution aims at providing the reader with the more complex reality of the phenomenon (or phenomena), and to point to issues of particular interest to philosophers working in moral psychology and moral theory. I first discuss the current evidence regarding psychopaths’ deficient empathy and decision-making skills. I then explore what difference it makes to our thinking whether we regard their deficit dimensionally (as involving abilities that are on or off) and whether we focus on primary or secondary psychopathy. My conclusion is that most grand claims about psychopathy settling long-standing debates in moral philosophy and psychology are overblown, but there is much to be learnt from this disorder when it comes to formulating modern theories of moral psychology

Locke's Moral Psychology

In this chapter, I discuss Locke’s contributions to moral psychology. I begin by examining how we acquire moral ideas, according to Locke. Next, I ask what explains why we act morally. I address this question by showing how Locke reconciles hedonist views concerning moral motivation with his commitment to divine law theory. Then I turn to Shaftesbury’s criticism that Locke’s moral view is a self-interested moral theory that undermines virtue. In response to the criticism I draw attention to Locke’s Christian conception of virtue

Negligence: its moral significance

This is a draft of my chapter on Negligence for the forthcoming Oxford Handbook in Moral Psychology. It discusses philosophical, psychological, and legal approaches to the attribution of culpability in cases of negligent wrongdoing

Self-Love and Self-Conceit

This paper examines the distinction between self-love and self-conceit in Kant's moral psychology. It motivates an alternative account of the origin of self-conceit by drawing a parallel to what Kant calls transcendental illusion