Dahl Audun
University of California, Santa Cruz.
Psychol Inq. 2023;34(2):53-79. doi: 10.1080/1047840x.2023.2248854. Epub 2023 Sep 13.
All psychological research on morality relies on definitions of morality. Yet the various definitions often go unstated. When unstated definitions diverge, theoretical disagreements become intractable, as theories that purport to explain "morality" actually talk about very different things. This article argues for the importance of defining morality and considers four common ways of doing so: The , the , the , and the . Each has encountered difficulties. To surmount those difficulties, I propose a , and definition of morality: obligatory concerns with others' welfare, rights, fairness, and justice, as well as the reasoning, judgment, emotions, and actions that spring from those concerns. By articulating workable definitions of morality, psychologists can communicate more clearly across paradigms, separate definitional from empirical disagreements, and jointly advance the field of moral psychology.
所有关于道德的心理学研究都依赖于道德的定义。然而,各种定义往往未被阐明。当未阐明的定义出现分歧时,理论上的分歧就会变得难以解决,因为那些旨在解释“道德”的理论实际上谈论的是非常不同的事物。本文论证了定义道德的重要性,并考虑了四种常见的定义方式:[此处原文缺失具体定义方式内容]。每种方式都遇到了困难。为了克服这些困难,我提出了一个[此处原文缺失具体定义内容]的道德定义:对他人福利、权利、公平和正义的义务性关注,以及源于这些关注的推理、判断、情感和行为。通过阐明可行的道德定义,心理学家可以在不同范式之间更清晰地交流,将定义性分歧与实证性分歧区分开来,并共同推动道德心理学领域的发展。