On the perceived objectivity of some moral beliefs

References

• Bloom, P. (2009). Religious belief as an evolutionary accident. In J. Schloss & M. Murray (Eds.), The believing primate(pp. 118–127). Oxford: OUP. Chapter 5.
   Google Scholar
• Crockett, M. (2013). Models of morality. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17(8), 363–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cushman, F. (2013). Action, outcome and value: A dual-system framework for morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3), 273–292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cushman, F. A., Gray, K., Gaffey, A., & Mendes, W. (2012). Simulating murder: The aversion to harmful action. Emotion, 12, 2–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delgado, M. R., Jou, R. L., & Phelps, E. A. (2011). Neural systems underlying aversive conditioning in humans with primary and secondary reinforcers. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 5, 71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, & Frankish. (2009). In two minds: Dual processes and beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2008). The psychology of meta-ethics: Exploring objectivism. Cognition, 106, 1339–1366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2010). The perceived objectivity of ethical beliefs: Psychological findings and implications for public policy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1(2), 161–188.
   Google Scholar
• Goodwin, G. P., & Darley, J. M. (2012). Why are some moral beliefs perceived to be more objective than others? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2012), 250–256.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. (2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology volume 3 (pp. 35–80). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Greene, J. (2013). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason and the gap between Us and Them. Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, B. M., Donnelly, K., Leonards, U., & Bloom, P. (2010). Implicit voodoo: Electrodermal activity reveals a susceptibility to sympathetic magic. Journal of Cognition and Culture, 10, 391–399.
   Google Scholar
• Hume, D. (1902 [1777]). Enquiries concerning the human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. In L. A. Selby-Bigge M.A (Ed.), (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Retrieved 5/19/2017 from the World Wide Web http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/341
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel prize lecture, Accessed March 28, 2011. Retrieved from http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahnemann-lecture.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kant, I. (2002 [1785]). Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by Allen Wood. London: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• King, L. A., Burton, C. M., Hicks, J. A., & Drigotas, S. M. (2007). Ghosts, UFOs, and magic: Positive affect and the experiential system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 905–919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Plato. (2008). The republic. Project Gutenburg Ebook. Accessed 22 December 2017. Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1497/1497-h/1497-h.htm
   Google Scholar
• Rozin, P., Millman, L., & Nemeroff, C. (1986). Operation of the laws of sympathetic magic in disgust and other domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 703–712.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segall, M., Campbell, & Herskovits. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. Oxford: Bobbs-Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Sripada, C. (2008). Nativism and moral psychology: Three models of the innate structure that shapes the content of moral norms. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology volume 1: The evolution of morality: adaptations and innateness (pp. 319–344). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stanovich, K., & West, R. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar