In this article, I argue for four theses. First, libertarian and compatibilist accounts of moral responsibility agree that the capability of practical reason is the central feature of moral responsibility. Second, this viewpoint leads to a reasons-focused account of human behavior. Examples of human action discussed in debates about moral responsibility suggest that typical human actions are driven primarily by the agent’s subjective reasons and are sufficiently transparent for the agent. Third, this conception of self-transparent action is a questionable idealization. (...) As shown by psychological research on self-assessment, motivated reasoning, and terror management theory, humans oftentimes have only a limited understanding of their conduct. Self-deception is rather the rule than the exception. Fourth, taking the limited self-transparency of practical reason seriously leads to a socially contextualized conception of moral responsibility. (shrink)

This paper argues that applied ethics can itself be morally problematic. As illustrated by the case of Peter Singer’s criticism of social practice, morally loaded communication by applied ethicists can lead to protests, backlashes, and aggression. By reviewing the psychological literature on self-image, collective identity, and motivated reasoning three categories of morally problematic consequences of ethical criticism by applied ethicists are identified: serious psychological discomfort, moral backfiring, and hostile conflict. The most worrisome is moral backfiring: psychological research suggests that ethical (...) criticism of people’s central moral convictions can reinforce exactly those attitudes. Therefore, applied ethicists unintentionally can contribute to a consolidation of precisely those social circumstances that they condemn to be unethical. Furthermore, I argue that the normative concerns raised in this paper are not dependent on the commitment to one specific paradigm in moral philosophy. Utilitarianism, Aristotelian virtue ethics, and Rawlsian contractarianism all provide sound reasons to take morally problematic consequences of ethical criticism seriously. Only the case of deontological ethics is less clear-cut. Finally, I point out that the issues raised in this paper provide an excellent opportunity for further interdisciplinary collaboration between applied ethics and social sciences. I also propose strategies for communicating ethics effectively. (shrink)

Menschen überschätzen ihre Rationalität erheblich. Psychologische Informiertheit kann die Ethik davor bewahren, diese Selbstüberschätzung unhinterfragt aufzugreifen. Wir Menschen halten zumindest uns selbst im Grossen und Ganzen für rational. Wir glauben zu wissen, warum wir uns auf eine bestimmte Weise verhalten, und wir können auf Nachfrage viele Gründe für unsere Einstellungen und Handlungen angeben. Die psychologische Forschung zeigt jedoch die Unzulänglichkeit dieses rationalistischen Selbstverständnisses auf. Gerade in Bezug auf tiefsitzende Einstellungen und wertebezogene Handlungen sind Selbsttäuschungen eher der Regelfall als die Ausnahme. (...) Eine psychologisch informierte Ethik versucht, diese beschränkte menschliche Selbsttransparenz umfassend zu berücksichtigen. Dadurch kann sie nicht nur philosophisch-psychologische Grenzfragen beantworten, sie überzeugt vor allem durch ein realitätsnahes Menschenbild."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)