Category Archives: moral psychology

poverty, willpower, and virtue ethics

Recently, philoso­pher Michael Cholbi tweeted this story: “Why Can’ More Poor Peo­ple Escape Poverty?”, along with the sug­ges­tion that the find­ings described therein could have impli­ca­tions for virtue the­ory. To make a long story short: “In the 1990s, social psy­chol­o­gists devel­oped a the­ory of “depletable” self-control. The idea was that an individual’s capac­ity for exert­ing willpower was

being judgmental: imprudent and vicious

Peo­ple seem to like to claim that they aren’t judg­men­tal. Espe­cially the hip, young, urban, lib­eral peo­ple who I encounter reg­u­larly. What’s wrong with being judg­men­tal, any­way? There are at least two aspects to it, I think which maybe get con­flated. On the one hand, some­times the bad­ness of being judg­men­tal gets explained some­thing like

states of character vs. virtues

Ok, one last bit for now on the sit­u­a­tion­ism stuff (con­tin­ued from here, here, and here). I think a main source of con­fu­sion is the dis­tinc­tion between what empir­i­cal claims virtue ethi­cists make, imply, or are com­mit­ted to, and what their nor­ma­tive claims are. Here’s my inter­pre­ta­tion of at least part of the story: Empir­i­cal Claim:

another stab at situationism

I think maybe I explained sit­u­a­tion­ism rather poorly back here in skep­ti­cism about moral char­ac­ter. Some things Adam says over at Sophist­pun­dit about The Nature of Char­ac­ter pro­vide a good oppor­tu­nity for me to clear things up for him as well as any­one else I may have unwit­tingly con­fused. So let me address a few

snapshots of moral character

Here is my very late reply to Jim on skep­ti­cism about moral char­ac­ter. The short answer: No, in all my mod­er­ately exten­sive read­ing on this sub­ject, I have not found any “stud­ies that actu­ally involve the obser­va­tion of a person’s behav­ior across a wide range of rel­e­vant cir­cum­stances,” as opposed to stud­ies which deal with

skepticism about moral character

The other day, my buddy Adam over at Sophist­pun­dit wrote about Char­ac­ter. I was not sur­prised that, being an econ­o­mist and some kind of Humean virtue ethi­cist, he thinks that moral­ity mostly con­cerns what kind of peo­ple we are, and that actions are sig­nals to other peo­ple, pro­vid­ing infor­ma­tion about what we’re like. Adam claims that

how I semi-accidentally became vegetarian

Ani­mal wel­fare issues are really impor­tant to me, but some­how they have failed to make an appear­ance here so far. Allow me to rec­tify the sit­u­a­tion. This is part 1 of a few posts on my adven­tures in plant-based eat­ing. Flash back to fall 2007. It was my first semes­ter in grad­u­ate school. I was

tv violence, part two

Shortly after my last post on tv vio­lence, a friend emailed me with some use­ful com­ments on the mat­ter. Her best two points, I think, were about whether or not por­tray­als of vio­lent sit­u­a­tions are real­is­tic, and the impor­tance of the viewer iden­ti­fy­ing with the right party to the vio­lence. I really should have men­tioned

tv violence

Last night, I watched an extremely vio­lent movie, “King­dom of Heaven” (2005, direc­tor Rid­ley Scott). This reminded me of a debate which sur­faces in the media from time to time over vio­lence on tele­vi­sion: whether it should be restricted from minors, whether it should be pro­duced in the first place, whether watch­ing it is bad