Deciding for Others: An Expressivist Theory of Normative Judgment

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alisabeth Ayars
Keyword(s):  
Normative Judgment

The Motivational Power of Moral Beliefs

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua May
Keyword(s):  
Moral Identity ◽  
Motivated Reasoning ◽  
Difficult Case ◽  
Moral Integrity ◽  
Normative Judgment ◽  
Moral Beliefs ◽  
Moral Hypocrisy ◽  
Moral Licensing ◽  
Self Interest

Even if we can rise above self-interest, we may just be slaves of our passions. But the motivational power of reason, via moral beliefs, has been understated, even in the difficult case of temptation. Experiments show that often when we succumb, it is due in part to a change in moral (or normative) judgment. We can see this by carefully examining a range of experiments on motivated reasoning, moral licensing, moral hypocrisy, and moral identity. Rationalization, perhaps paradoxically, reveals a deep regard for reason, to act in ways we can justify to ourselves and to others. The result is that we are very often morally motivated or exhibit moral integrity. Even when behaving badly, actions that often seem motivated by self-interest are actually ultimately driven by a concern to do what’s right.

scholarly journals Sacrificing Oneself or Another: The Difference Between Prescriptive and Normative Judgments in Moral Evaluation

2020 ◽  
pp. 003329411989606
Author(s):  
Štěpán Bahník ◽  
Emir Efendic ◽  
Marek A. Vranka
Keyword(s):  
Moral Judgment ◽  
Moral Evaluation ◽  
Normative Judgment ◽  
Question Wording ◽  
Judgment Type ◽  
Course Of Action ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Sacrifice ◽  
Normative Judgments

When asked whether to sacrifice oneself or another person to save others, one might think that people would consider sacrificing themselves rather than someone else as the right and appropriate course of action—thus showing an other-serving bias. So far however, most studies found instances of a self-serving bias—people say they would rather sacrifice others. In three experiments using trolley-like dilemmas, we tested whether an other-serving bias might appear as a function of judgment type. That is, participants were asked to make a prescriptive judgment (whether the described action should or should not be done) or a normative judgment (whether the action is right or wrong). We found that participants exhibited an other-serving bias only when asked whether self- or other-sacrifice is wrong. That is, when the judgment was normative and in a negative frame (in contrast to the positive frame asking whether the sacrifice is right). Otherwise, participants tended to exhibit a self-serving bias; that is, they approved sacrificing others more. The results underscore the importance of question wording and suggest that some effects on moral judgment might depend on the type of judgment.

Wise Choices, Apt Feelings: A Theory of Normative Judgment.

1992 ◽  
Vol 101 (4) ◽  
pp. 934
Author(s):  
Arthur Ripstein ◽  
Allan Gibbard
Keyword(s):  
Normative Judgment

scholarly journals Artificial intelligence applications in social media for depression screening: A systematic review protocol for content validity processes

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. e0259499
Author(s):  
Priscilla N. Owusu ◽  
Ulrich Reininghaus ◽  
Georgia Koppe ◽  
Irene Dankwa-Mullan ◽  
Till Bärnighausen
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Social Media ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Machine Learning Techniques ◽  
Measurement Instruments ◽  
Normative Judgment ◽  
Current Application ◽  
Randomized Controlled Studies ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

Background The popularization of social media has led to the coalescing of user groups around mental health conditions; in particular, depression. Social media offers a rich environment for contextualizing and predicting users’ self-reported burden of depression. Modern artificial intelligence (AI) methods are commonly employed in analyzing user-generated sentiment on social media. In the forthcoming systematic review, we will examine the content validity of these computer-based health surveillance models with respect to standard diagnostic frameworks. Drawing from a clinical perspective, we will attempt to establish a normative judgment about the strengths of these modern AI applications in the detection of depression. Methods We will perform a systematic review of English and German language publications from 2010 to 2020 in PubMed, APA PsychInfo, Science Direct, EMBASE Psych, Google Scholar, and Web of Science. The inclusion criteria span cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, randomized controlled studies, in addition to reports on conference proceedings. The systematic review will exclude some gray source materials, specifically editorials, newspaper articles, and blog posts. Our primary outcome is self-reported depression, as expressed on social media. Secondary outcomes will be the types of AI methods used for social media depression screen, and the clinical validation procedures accompanying these methods. In a second step, we will utilize the evidence-strengthening Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, Study type (PICOS) tool to refine our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Following the independent assessment of the evidence sources by two authors for the risk of bias, the data extraction process will culminate in a thematic synthesis of reviewed studies. Discussion We present the protocol for a systematic review which will consider all existing literature from peer reviewed publication sources relevant to the primary and secondary outcomes. The completed review will discuss depression as a self-reported health outcome in social media material. We will examine the computational methods, including AI and machine learning techniques which are commonly used for online depression surveillance. Furthermore, we will focus on standard clinical assessments, as indicating content validity, in the design of the algorithms. The methodological quality of the clinical construct of the algorithms will be evaluated with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework. We conclude the study with a normative judgment about the current application of AI to screen for depression on social media. Systematic review registration International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020187874).

Normative Judgment, Realism, and International Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-85
Author(s):  
Carmen E. Pavel
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Rational Choice ◽  
Choice Model ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Actor Model ◽  
Normative Judgment ◽  
Moral Ideal ◽  
State Behavior ◽  
Rational Choice Model ◽  
Bilateral Treaties

A strand of thought within international relations realism claims that international law, understood as the dense network of multilateral and bilateral treaties, customary law, and institutions tasked with interpreting and applying them, cannot have meaningfully legal authority. This chapter traces the genealogy of the realist take on international law to a problematic use of the rational choice model for state behavior. Namely, realists derive skeptical positions about the authority and value of international law by using the rational choice model applied to states prescriptively rather than merely descriptively. With parsimonious assumptions about instrumental rationality, preferences, and choice situations, realists have put the model to good use to explain state action in the context of international politics. But they go much further, by taking the rational actor model to articulate an implicit moral ideal for states.

scholarly journals Why Normative Judgment Is Inescapable

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (10) ◽  
pp. 48-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Govert den Hartogh
Keyword(s):  
Normative Judgment
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document