scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Richard Joyce

Bio: Richard Joyce is an academic researcher from Victoria University of Wellington. The author has contributed to research in topics: Morality & Argument. The author has an hindex of 14, co-authored 48 publications receiving 1854 citations. Previous affiliations of Richard Joyce include Australian National University & University of Sheffield.

Papers
More filters
Book
02 Dec 2005
TL;DR: The Evolution of Morality as mentioned in this paper is one of the few books in this area written from the perspective of moral philosophy, with a focus on the evolution of moral thinking and its evolutionary origins.
Abstract: Moral thinking pervades our practical lives, but where did this way of thinking come from, and what purpose does it serve? Is it to be explained by environmental pressures on our ancestors a million years ago, or is it a cultural invention of more recent origin? In The Evolution of Morality, Richard Joyce takes up these controversial questions, finding that the evidence supports an innate basis to human morality. As a moral philosopher, Joyce is interested in whether any implications follow from this hypothesis. Might the fact that the human brain has been biologically prepared by natural selection to engage in moral judgment serve in some sense to vindicate this way of thinking -- staving off the threat of moral skepticism, or even undergirding some version of moral realism? Or if morality has an adaptive explanation in genetic terms -- if it is, as Joyce writes, "just something that helped our ancestors make more babies" -- might such an explanation actually undermine morality's central role in our lives? He carefully examines both the evolutionary "vindication of morality" and the evolutionary "debunking of morality," considering the skeptical view more seriously than have others who have treated the subject. Interdisciplinary and combining the latest results from the empirical sciences with philosophical discussion, The Evolution of Morality is one of the few books in this area written from the perspective of moral philosophy. Concise and without technical jargon, the arguments are rigorous but accessible to readers from different academic backgrounds. Joyce discusses complex issues in plain language while advocating subtle and sometimes radical views. The Evolution of Morality lays the philosophical foundations for further research into the biological understanding of human morality.

668 citations

Book
22 Nov 2001
TL;DR: In this paper, error theory and motivation have been used to explain the relativity of reasons in moral fictionalism and reason theory in practical instrumentalism, and in Morality and evolution.
Abstract: Preface 1. Error theory and motivation 2. Error theory and reasons 3. Practical instrumentalism 4. The relativity of reasons 5. Internal and external reasons 6. Morality and evolution 7. Fictionalism 8. Moral fictionalism Epilogue: debunking myths Select bibliography Index.

468 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Nov 2001

290 citations

01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: Certain themes emerge that demonstrate the ubiquity of questions regarding cooperation in evolutionary biology: the generation and division of the profits of cooperation; transitions in individuality; levels of selection, from gene to organism; and the "human cooperation explosion" that makes the authors' own social behavior particularly puzzling from an evolutionary perspective.
Abstract: This collection reports on the latest research on an increasingly pivotal issue for evolutionary biology: cooperation. The chapters are written from a variety of disciplinary perspectives and utilize research tools that range from empirical survey to conceptual modeling, reflecting the rich diversity of work in the field. They explore a wide taxonomic range, concentrating on bacteria, social insects, and, especially, humans. Part I ("Agents and Environments") investigates the connections of social cooperation in social organizations to the conditions that make cooperation profitable and stable, focusing on the interactions of agent, population, and environment. Part II ("Agents and Mechanisms") focuses on how proximate mechanisms emerge and operate in the evolutionary process and how they shape evolutionary trajectories. Throughout the book, certain themes emerge that demonstrate the ubiquity of questions regarding cooperation in evolutionary biology: the generation and division of the profits of cooperation; transitions in individuality; levels of selection, from gene to organism; and the "human cooperation explosion" that makes our own social behavior particularly puzzling from an evolutionary perspective.

56 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors rebuts Finlay's arguments, criticizes his positive theory, and clarifies the error-theoretic position of the moral error theory and shows that the error theory is in fact false.
Abstract: In his paper ‘The Error in the Error Theory’[this journal, 2008], Stephen Finlay attempts to show that the moral error theorist has not only failed to prove his case, but that the error theory is in fact false. This paper rebuts Finlay's arguments, criticizes his positive theory, and clarifies the error-theoretic position.

37 citations


Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Moral Foundations Questionnaire is developed on the basis of a theoretical model of 5 universally available (but variably developed) sets of moral intuitions and convergent/discriminant validity evidence suggests that moral concerns predict personality features and social group attitudes not previously considered morally relevant.
Abstract: The moral domain is broader than the empathy and justice concerns assessed by existing measures of moral competence, and it is not just a subset of the values assessed by value inventories. To fill the need for reliable and theoretically grounded measurement of the full range of moral concerns, we developed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire on the basis of a theoretical model of 5 universally available (but variably developed) sets of moral intuitions: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. We present evidence for the internal and external validity of the scale and the model, and in doing so we present new findings about morality: (a) Comparative model fitting of confirmatory factor analyses provides empirical justification for a 5-factor structure of moral concerns; (b) convergent/discriminant validity evidence suggests that moral concerns predict personality features and social group attitudes not previously considered morally relevant; and (c) we establish pragmatic validity of the measure in providing new knowledge and research opportunities concerning demographic and cultural differences in moral intuitions. These analyses provide evidence for the usefulness of Moral Foundations Theory in simultaneously increasing the scope and sharpening the resolution of psychological views of morality.

1,821 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Oct 2004-Daedalus
TL;DR: For example, this paper argued that the common elements of common moral beliefs in different cultures arise from similar problems (e.g., how to divide power and resources, care for children, and resolve disputes) for which they have often developed similar solutions.
Abstract: maps embellished with fantastical beasts, sixteenth-century wonder chambers 1⁄2lled with natural and technological marvels, even late-twentieth-century supermarket tabloids–all attest to the human fascination with things that violate our basic ideas about reality. The study of morality and culture is therefore an intrinsically fascinating topic. People have created moralities as divergent as those of Nazis and Quakers, headhunters and Jains. And yet, when we look closely at the daily lives of people in divergent cultures, we can 1⁄2nd elements that arise in nearly all of them– for example, reciprocity, loyalty, respect for (some) authority, limits on physical harm, and regulation of eating and sexuality. What are we to make of this pattern of similarity within profound difference? Social scientists have traditionally taken two approaches. The empiricist approach posits that moral knowledge, moral beliefs, moral action, and all the other stuff of morality are learned in childhood. There is no moral faculty or moral anything else built into the human mind, although there may be some innate learning mechanisms that enable the acquisition of later knowledge. To the extent that there are similarities across cultures, they arise because all cultures face similar problems (e.g., how to divide power and resources, care for children, and resolve disputes) for which they have often developed similar solutions. The nativist approach, on the other hand, holds that knowledge about such issues as fairness, harm, and respect for authority has been built into the human mind by evolution. All children who are raised in a reasonable environment will come to develop these ideas, even if they are not taught by adults. To the extent that there are differences across cultures, they arise because of local variation in the implementation of universal moral

1,235 citations

Book ChapterDOI
TL;DR: The Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) as discussed by the authors was created to answer these questions, including: where does morality come from? Why are moral judgments often so similar across cultures, yet sometimes so variable? Is morality one thing, or many?
Abstract: Where does morality come from? Why are moral judgments often so similar across cultures, yet sometimes so variable? Is morality one thing, or many? Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) was created to answer these questions. In this chapter, we describe the origins, assumptions, and current conceptualization of the theory and detail the empirical findings that MFT has made possible, both within social psychology and beyond. Looking toward the future, we embrace several critiques of the theory and specify five criteria for determining what should be considered a foundation of human morality. Finally, we suggest a variety of future directions for MFT and moral psychology.

702 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Relationship regulation theory predicts that any action, including violence, unequal treatment, and "impure" acts, may be perceived as morally correct depending on the moral motive employed and how the relevant social relationship is construed.
Abstract: Genuine moral disagreement exists and is widespread. To understand such disagreement, we must examine the basic kinds of social relationships people construct across cultures and the distinct moral obligations and prohibitions these relationships entail. We extend relational models theory (Fiske, 1991) to identify 4 fundamental and distinct moral motives. Unity is the motive to care for and support the integrity of in-groups by avoiding or eliminating threats of contamination and providing aid and protection based on need or empathic compassion. Hierarchy is the motive to respect rank in social groups where superiors are entitled to deference and respect but must also lead, guide, direct, and protect subordinates. Equality is the motive for balanced, in-kind reciprocity, equal treatment, equal say, and equal opportunity. Proportionality is the motive for rewards and punishments to be proportionate to merit, benefits to be calibrated to contributions, and judgments to be based on a utilitarian calculus of costs and benefits. The 4 moral motives are universal, but cultures, ideologies, and individuals differ in where they activate these motives and how they implement them. Unlike existing theories (Haidt, 2007; Hauser, 2006; Turiel, 1983), relationship regulation theory predicts that any action, including violence, unequal treatment, and "impure" acts, may be perceived as morally correct depending on the moral motive employed and how the relevant social relationship is construed. This approach facilitates clearer understanding of moral perspectives we disagree with and provides a template for how to influence moral motives and practices in the world.

616 citations

Book
20 Jan 2011
TL;DR: In this paper, a relation to the world of concern and its relation to social science is discussed. But the focus is on the ethical dimension of life and not the social science itself.
Abstract: Preface and acknowledgements 1. Introduction: a relation to the world of concern 2. Values within reason 3. Reason beyond rationality: values and practical reason 4. Beings for whom things matter 5. Understanding the ethical dimension of life 6. Dignity 7. Critical social science and its rationales 8. Implications for social science Appendix: comments on philosophical theories of ethics Bibliography Index.

554 citations