First of all, thanks for the comment as well as the kind words about the book and the idea. Much appreciated. Your analysis here seems right to me. I’m skeptical of the idea in the Puritans BBS paper you indicate, just as you say. As you know, we open our response by wondering in what way it is cheating to, say, have different supernatural beliefs, for example. As you say, our view is that moral judgment is serving a side-taking function. I like the “break the tie” language, and in the next post in this series, I’ll use examples that try to make that intuition a bit more concrete. For us, punishment is, firstly, a signal. If you and I are going to credibly signal who we are against, we can do so by supporting costs. How much cost is, of course, a trick. In the piece on sports, I tried to lay some groundwork for this, and a few posts are coming that dig in a bit more. But, just to say, you have it right. Moralistic judgment does not seem to us to be aimed at reducing cheating, free riding, or a lack of effort, as we think is shown by evidence for the vast array of moralized actions. (And, of course, non-consequentialism is also a key clue.) Moral judgment is, we suggest, for getting on the same side as everyone else when conflicts emerge. Thanks again for your comment and let me know if I can clarify further!
Moo & Neigh: The FIRST philosophical question: Is there one thing that we can agree upon?
First of all, thanks for the comment as well as the kind words about the book and the idea. Much appreciated. Your analysis here seems right to me. I’m skeptical of the idea in the Puritans BBS paper you indicate, just as you say. As you know, we open our response by wondering in what way it is cheating to, say, have different supernatural beliefs, for example. As you say, our view is that moral judgment is serving a side-taking function. I like the “break the tie” language, and in the next post in this series, I’ll use examples that try to make that intuition a bit more concrete. For us, punishment is, firstly, a signal. If you and I are going to credibly signal who we are against, we can do so by supporting costs. How much cost is, of course, a trick. In the piece on sports, I tried to lay some groundwork for this, and a few posts are coming that dig in a bit more. But, just to say, you have it right. Moralistic judgment does not seem to us to be aimed at reducing cheating, free riding, or a lack of effort, as we think is shown by evidence for the vast array of moralized actions. (And, of course, non-consequentialism is also a key clue.) Moral judgment is, we suggest, for getting on the same side as everyone else when conflicts emerge. Thanks again for your comment and let me know if I can clarify further!