Abstract
A growing body of psychological and neuroscientific research links dual-process theories of cognition with moral reasoning (and implicitly to legal reasoning as well). The relevant research appears to show that at least some deontological judgments are connected with rapid, automatic, emotional processing, and that consequentialist judgments (including utilitarianism) are connected with slower, more deliberative thinking. These findings are consistent with the claim that deontological thinking is best understood as a moral heuristic – one that generally works well, but that also misfires. If this claim is right, it may have large implications for many debates in politics, morality, and law, including those involving the role of retribution, the free speech principle, religious liberty, the idea of fairness, and the legitimacy of cost-benefit analysis. Nonetheless, psychological and neuroscientific research cannot rule out the possibility that consequentialism is wrong and that deontology is right. It tells us about the psychology of moral and legal judgment, but it does no more. On the largest questions, it leaves moral and legal debates essentially as they were before.
Highlights
A growing body of psychological and neuroscientific research links dual-process theories of cognition with moral reasoning
(Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism.) By contrast, deontologists believe that some actions are wrong even if they have good consequences
You should not throw someone in the way of a speeding train even if that action would save lives on balance; you should not torture someone even if doing so would produce information that would save lives; slavery is a moral wrong regardless of the outcome of any utilitarian calculus; the protection of free speech does not depend on any such calculus; the strongest arguments for and against capital punishment turn on what is right, independent of the consequences of capital punishment. 2
Summary
Moral, and legal theory, many of the largest debates pit consequentialists against deontologists. 1. P (Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism.) By contrast, deontologists believe that some actions are wrong even if they have good consequences. P (Utilitarianism is a species of consequentialism.) By contrast, deontologists believe that some actions are wrong even if they have good consequences In the face of the extensive body of philosophical work exploring the conflict between deontology and consequentialism, it seems reckless to venture a simple resolution, but let us consider one: Deontology is a moral heuristic for what really matters, and consequences are what really matter On this view, deontological intuitions are generally sound, in the sense that they usually lead to what would emerge from a proper consequentialist assessment.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
