Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism

Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret wha...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Lance S. Bush [verfasserIn] David Moss [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch ; Polnisch

Erschienen:	2020

Schlagwörter:	experimental philosophy meta-ethics metaphilosophy moral cognition moral objectivism moral reasoning

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Diametros - Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017, 17(2020), 64
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:17 ; year:2020 ; number:64

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.33392/diam.1495

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ022618694

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ022618694
003	DE-627
005	20230307060351.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.33392/diam.1495 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ022618694
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng \|a pol
100	0		\|a Lance S. Bush \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism
264		1	\|c 2020
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics.
650		4	\|a experimental philosophy
650		4	\|a meta-ethics
650		4	\|a metaphilosophy
650		4	\|a moral cognition
650		4	\|a moral objectivism
650		4	\|a moral reasoning
653		0	\|a Philosophy. Psychology. Religion
653		0	\|a B
700	0		\|a David Moss \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Diametros \|d Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017 \|g 17(2020), 64 \|w (DE-627)47985811X \|w (DE-600)2178016-X \|x 17335566 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:17 \|g year:2020 \|g number:64
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_90
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_374
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_702
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2005
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2007
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2190
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2863
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 17 \|j 2020 \|e 64

Indexfelder

author_variant	l s b lsb d m dm
matchkey_str	article:17335566:2020----::iudrtnigeatisifclisesrnfloj
hierarchy_sort_str	2020
publishDate	2020
allfields	10.33392/diam.1495 doi (DE-627)DOAJ022618694 (DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng pol Lance S. Bush verfasserin aut Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics. experimental philosophy meta-ethics metaphilosophy moral cognition moral objectivism moral reasoning Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B David Moss verfasserin aut In Diametros Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017 17(2020), 64 (DE-627)47985811X (DE-600)2178016-X 17335566 nnns volume:17 year:2020 number:64 https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 kostenfrei https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2020 64
spelling	10.33392/diam.1495 doi (DE-627)DOAJ022618694 (DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng pol Lance S. Bush verfasserin aut Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics. experimental philosophy meta-ethics metaphilosophy moral cognition moral objectivism moral reasoning Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B David Moss verfasserin aut In Diametros Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017 17(2020), 64 (DE-627)47985811X (DE-600)2178016-X 17335566 nnns volume:17 year:2020 number:64 https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 kostenfrei https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2020 64
allfields_unstemmed	10.33392/diam.1495 doi (DE-627)DOAJ022618694 (DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng pol Lance S. Bush verfasserin aut Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics. experimental philosophy meta-ethics metaphilosophy moral cognition moral objectivism moral reasoning Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B David Moss verfasserin aut In Diametros Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017 17(2020), 64 (DE-627)47985811X (DE-600)2178016-X 17335566 nnns volume:17 year:2020 number:64 https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 kostenfrei https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2020 64
allfieldsGer	10.33392/diam.1495 doi (DE-627)DOAJ022618694 (DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng pol Lance S. Bush verfasserin aut Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics. experimental philosophy meta-ethics metaphilosophy moral cognition moral objectivism moral reasoning Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B David Moss verfasserin aut In Diametros Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017 17(2020), 64 (DE-627)47985811X (DE-600)2178016-X 17335566 nnns volume:17 year:2020 number:64 https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 kostenfrei https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2020 64
allfieldsSound	10.33392/diam.1495 doi (DE-627)DOAJ022618694 (DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng pol Lance S. Bush verfasserin aut Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism 2020 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics. experimental philosophy meta-ethics metaphilosophy moral cognition moral objectivism moral reasoning Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B David Moss verfasserin aut In Diametros Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017 17(2020), 64 (DE-627)47985811X (DE-600)2178016-X 17335566 nnns volume:17 year:2020 number:64 https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 kostenfrei https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2020 64
language	English Polish
source	In Diametros 17(2020), 64 volume:17 year:2020 number:64
sourceStr	In Diametros 17(2020), 64 volume:17 year:2020 number:64
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	experimental philosophy meta-ethics metaphilosophy moral cognition moral objectivism moral reasoning Philosophy. Psychology. Religion B
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Diametros
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Lance S. Bush @@aut@@ David Moss @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2020-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	47985811X
id	DOAJ022618694
language_de	englisch polnisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ022618694</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307060351.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.33392/diam.1495</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ022618694</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">pol</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lance S. Bush</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">experimental philosophy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">meta-ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">metaphilosophy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">moral cognition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">moral objectivism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">moral reasoning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philosophy. Psychology. Religion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">B</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David Moss</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Diametros</subfield><subfield code="d">Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2020), 64</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)47985811X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2178016-X</subfield><subfield code="x">17335566</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:64</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_374</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2863</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">64</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
author	Lance S. Bush
spellingShingle	Lance S. Bush misc experimental philosophy misc meta-ethics misc metaphilosophy misc moral cognition misc moral objectivism misc moral reasoning misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism
authorStr	Lance S. Bush
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)47985811X
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	17335566
topic_title	Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism experimental philosophy meta-ethics metaphilosophy moral cognition moral objectivism moral reasoning
topic	misc experimental philosophy misc meta-ethics misc metaphilosophy misc moral cognition misc moral objectivism misc moral reasoning misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B
topic_unstemmed	misc experimental philosophy misc meta-ethics misc metaphilosophy misc moral cognition misc moral objectivism misc moral reasoning misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B
topic_browse	misc experimental philosophy misc meta-ethics misc metaphilosophy misc moral cognition misc moral objectivism misc moral reasoning misc Philosophy. Psychology. Religion misc B
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Diametros
hierarchy_parent_id	47985811X
hierarchy_top_title	Diametros
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)47985811X (DE-600)2178016-X
title	Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ022618694 (DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98
title_full	Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism
author_sort	Lance S. Bush
journal	Diametros
journalStr	Diametros
lang_code	eng pol
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2020
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Lance S. Bush David Moss
container_volume	17
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Lance S. Bush
doi_str_mv	10.33392/diam.1495
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	misunderstanding metaethics: difficulties measuring folk objectivism and relativism
title_auth	Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism
abstract	Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics.
abstractGer	Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics.
abstract_unstemmed	Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_90 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_374 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_702 GBV_ILN_2005 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2190 GBV_ILN_2863 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	64
title_short	Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism
url	https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495 https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98 https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495 https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566
remote_bool	true
author2	David Moss
author2Str	David Moss
ppnlink	47985811X
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.33392/diam.1495
up_date	2024-07-04T02:13:11.115Z
_version_	1803612786387845120
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ022618694</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307060351.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2020 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.33392/diam.1495</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ022618694</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJf2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield><subfield code="a">pol</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lance S. Bush</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2020</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Recent research on the metaethical beliefs of ordinary people appears to show that they are metaethical pluralists that adopt different metaethical standards for different moral judgments. Yet the methods used to evaluate folk metaethical belief rely on the assumption that participants interpret what they are asked in metaethical terms. We argue that most participants do not interpret questions designed to elicit metaethical beliefs in metaethical terms, or at least not in the way researchers intend. As a result, existing methods are not reliable measures of metaethical belief. We end by discussing the implications of our account for the philosophical and practical implications of research on the psychology of metaethics.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">experimental philosophy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">meta-ethics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">metaphilosophy</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">moral cognition</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">moral objectivism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">moral reasoning</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Philosophy. Psychology. Religion</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">B</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">David Moss</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Diametros</subfield><subfield code="d">Institute of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University, 2017</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2020), 64</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)47985811X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2178016-X</subfield><subfield code="x">17335566</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2020</subfield><subfield code="g">number:64</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.33392/diam.1495</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/f2404ced7d6e41bc9d9a1da589aecc98</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.diametros.iphils.uj.edu.pl/diametros/article/view/1495</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1733-5566</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_90</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_374</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_702</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2005</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2190</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2863</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2020</subfield><subfield code="e">64</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.397566

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Misunderstanding Metaethics: Difficulties Measuring Folk Objectivism and Relativism

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?