The aim of this paper is to reply to Amoretti and Iannucci’s though-provoking comments. Discussing with them will enable me to clarify some of the ideas presented in the book as well as to add further elements to the debate. In § 2, I will deal with the complicate relationship between normative and empirical research (replying to Amoretti), and, in § 3, I will consider the extent to which the dual-process model that has gained currency in moral psychology should be revised or abandoned (replying to Iannucci).

Sciences and ethics. Replies to comments / Songhorian, S.. - In: NOTIZIE DI POLITEIA. - ISSN 1128-2401. - 37:144(2021), pp. 169-172.

Sciences and ethics. Replies to comments

Songhorian S.
2021-01-01

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to reply to Amoretti and Iannucci’s though-provoking comments. Discussing with them will enable me to clarify some of the ideas presented in the book as well as to add further elements to the debate. In § 2, I will deal with the complicate relationship between normative and empirical research (replying to Amoretti), and, in § 3, I will consider the extent to which the dual-process model that has gained currency in moral psychology should be revised or abandoned (replying to Iannucci).
2021
ethics, cognitive sciences, emotions, reason.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Scienze ed etica.docx

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Submitted manuscript (manoscritto inviato all’editore)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 25.91 kB
Formato Microsoft Word XML
25.91 kB Microsoft Word XML   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/152396
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact