Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:42:03.491Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Qualitative judgments, quantitative judgments, and norm-sensitivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 October 2010

Paul Egré
Paul Egré
Affiliation:
Ecole Normale Supérieure, Département d'Etudes Cognitives, Institut Jean-Nicod (ENS-EHESS-CNRS), 75005 Paris, France. paul.egre@ens.frhttp://paulegre.free.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Moral considerations and our normative expectations influence not only our judgments about intentional action or causation but also our judgments about exact probabilities and quantities. Whereas those cases support the competence theory proposed by Knobe in his paper, they remain compatible with a modular conception of the interaction between moral and nonmoral cognitive faculties in each of those domains.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 33 , Issue 4 , August 2010 , pp. 335 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bonnefon, J.-F. & Villejoubert, G. (2006) Tactful or doubtful? Expectations of politeness explain the severity bias in the interpretation of probability phrases. Psychological Science 17:747–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cova, F. & Egré, P. (2010) Moral asymmetries and the semantics of “many.” Unpublished manuscript, Institut Jean-Nicod.Google Scholar
Egré, P. (2010) Intentional action and the semantics of gradable expressions (On the Knobe Effect). Unpublished manuscript, Institut Jean-Nicod.Google Scholar
Fara, D. (2000) Shifting sands: An interest-relative theory of vagueness. Philosophical Topics 28(1):45–81. (Originally published under the name Delia Graff).Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. (2007) Vagueness and grammar: The semantics of absolute and relative gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30:1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lappin, S. (2000) An intensional parametric semantics for vague quantifiers. Linguistics and Philosophy 23:599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, D. & Knobe, J. (2009) The pervasive impact of moral judgment. Mind and Language 24:586–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pighin, S., Bonnefon, J.-F. & Savadori, L. (2009) Overcoming number numbness in prenatal risk communication. Unpublished manuscript, University of Toulouse and Department of Cognitive Science and Education, University of Trento.Google Scholar
Sapir, E. (1944) Grading: A study in semantics. Philosophy of Science 11(2):93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. & Hilton, D. J. (1990) Contextual effects in the interpretation of probability words: Perceived base rate and severity of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 16(4):781–89.Google Scholar