Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T00:27:27.433Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why is ain't ought, or: Is Homo sapiens a rational humanist?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2004

Oliver Vitouch
Oliver Vitouch*
Affiliation:
Cognitive Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, University of Klagenfurt, 9020Klagenfurt, Austriahttp://www.uni-klu.ac.at/psy/cognition/
*
oliver.vitouch@uni-klu.ac.at
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Although the critique of disputable norms is largely legitimate in the cognitive realm, the role of social norms is a different one. Darley, Zimbardo, Milgram, and CNN have compellingly demonstrated that humans are not always humane. But the very cognitive ability to distinguish between “is” and “ought” shows that there is behavioral plasticity, and space for education, inoculation, and learning.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , June 2004 , pp. 359 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2004

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

Notes

1. This is, at least, what philosophers believed for the longest time. Many other metaphors have been proposed, such as Homo economicus, the selfish and corrupt guy who you would not necessarily like to live next door to.

2. In order to endorse such (extraordinary) courageous behavior, the Austrian empress Maria Theresia (1717–1780) instituted a high military decoration for justified and victorious disobedience to an order.