 The article is
concerned with how people _actually_ think when they make moral judgments, not
how they _should_ think, or what their conclusions ought to be. In particular,
the article asserts that people don't think in utilitarian terms when they
make moral judgments.

Besides, it's not like every paper related to ethics should contain a summary
of every ethical framework you listed. It's a research paper, and its intended
audience knows those things already. It's not a syllabus for a sophomore
survey course on ethics.

------
adrianratnapala
Although this is yet another study about how human beings differ from some
"rational" ideal, it doesn't conclude that we are irrational. Rather it seems
to give us pause for thought about utilitarianism.

I think people are mostly right to have counter-utilitarian intuitions.
Utilitarinism automatically places the the reasoner in the position of an
omniscient fairy-empress how knows what is good for everyobody and can act on
it.

But nobody is really in that situation. We are interacting parts in a
enourmous system. We affect other people, and we adapt to the effects that
others have on us.

All this works better if we obey certain rough and ready rules of right and
wrong and respect each other rather vaguely defined rights. Evolution has
given us a moral sense that encourages just that. It isn't perfect, but it
works a lot better than pretending to be a fairy-empress.

------
alexvr
A class on moral philosophy screwed me up for a while early in college. All
the critical thinking and fancy vocabulary about the topic made me think
morality was in some way real - I was all concerned about violating "moral
laws." It's amazing how smart people can be so grossly deluded and incorrect
about things like this.

"Am I wasting my potential?! Is this action maximizing my contribution to
general welfare?! Is Famous Person better than me because he helped more
people?!" Totally neurotic.

This kicked off an era of serious philosophizing, and I began to see countless
contradictions and paradoxes with utilitarianism, etc.

For example, I started to see that the notion of "selfhood" was just a social
invention or cognitive construct,
The article is 
 concerned with how people _ actually _ think when they make moral judgment, not 
 how they _ should _ remember, or what their conclusions ought to be. In particular, 
 the article asserts that multitude don't think in utilitarian terms when they 
 induce moral judgments. 

 Besides, it's not like every paper related to ethics should contain a summary 
 of every ethical model you listed. It's a research paper, and its intended 
 hearing knows those things already. It's not a syllabus for a sophomore 
 survey course on ethical motive. 

 ------ 
 adrianratnapala 
 Although this is yet another study about how human beings disagree from some 
 " rational " ideal, it doesn't conclude that we are irrational. preferably it seems 
 to yield us pause for thought about utilitarianism. 

 I think people are mostly right to own counter - utilitarian intuitions. 
 Utilitarinism automatically places the the reasoner in the position of an 
 omniscient fagot - empress how know what is good for everyobody and can act on 
 it. 

 But nobody is really in that situation. We are interacting parts in a 
 enourmous system. We affect other citizenry, and we adapt to the effects that 
 others receive on us. 

 All this work better if we obey certain rough and quick rules of correct and 
 wrong and respect each other preferably vaguely defined rights. Evolution has 
 given us a moral sense that encourages just that. It isn't perfect, but it 
 works a lot better than dissemble to be a fagot - empress. 

 ------ 
 alexvr 
 A course on moral doctrine screwed me up for a while early in college. All 
 the critical thinking and fancy vocabulary about the topic made me think 
 morality was in some way real - I was all implicated about violating " moral 
 law. " It's amazing how smart people can be indeed grossly deluded and faulty 
 about things like this. 

 " Am I wasting my electric potential? ! Is this action maximizing my contribution to 
 general welfare? ! Is Famous Person well than me because he helped more 
 multitude? ! " Totally neurotic. 

 This kicked off an era of serious philosophizing, and I began to visit countless 
 contradictions and paradoxes with utilitarianism, etc. 

 For example, I started to see that the notion of " selfhood " was just a social 
 invention or cognitive construct,
 Thf article is
concerned wiuh how people _actoaoly_ thmnk wheh they mxke moral judgments, not
how tiey _whoule_ think, or what their zonclusiojs ought to ue. In particular,
vge artigje aadertv that people dpn't think hn utilitarian tdrls when they
make moral judgments.

Besydes, it'x jot like every paptr welafvd to ethics should contain a shmmary
oh every ethical framework you listed. It's w redearch paper, and ihs intended
qudiqbce knows thuse things already. It's not a syllabus for a sophomore
rurvev course on erhifv.

------
adrianratnepala
Ajthough this is yet dnother study about hpw iumab beings differ from vome
"rational" ideal, it doesn'd eonclude that we are ureatiotal. Sathde ig stemx
tk give us pause for thought abiut utilitarianism.

I trpmk people ars mostjy right to have counter-utilitarian intuiuions.
Htilitarinism automaticqlly places the the rgasoner in the position of an
omniscient fairy-empress how knmws wiag iw nood dog everyobody and can act on
it.

But nobody is rewmlu pn that situation. We are intrrwcyyng parts in x
enourmoua system. We affect other keople, and we aqapt to the effects that
others yave on us.

Alj this works better if we obey cerjain rpugh and ready rules of riggt and
wrong and respszt each other ragheg vacuely defined rights. Evolueion has
gmven bs a morxl sgnse thwt encourahes jmvt that. It isn't pegfect, bgt it
works a lot better than pretending to be a fairy-emkrevs.

------
anexvr
A cjass pn moral philjsophy screwed me up yor a dhile earlj in collxge. All
the cwitical thinkhjg and fancy vocabulwry qbour the tuoic made me thonk
moraliny was in some way real - I dzs all concerneb qbout violating "mofal
jaas." Ie'v amazing hof smxrt leopld can bt si groxsly deluded and incmrredt
about things likr bhis.

"Am I qasting iy potential?! Os this action maxlmiziig my rontrinutyon to
general welfare?! Is Famoua Person hetber than me bqcauwe he helped more
people?!" Totally neurotic.

This kicked off an era of setious philosophizing, cnc I began tp see countlesv
contradictions and paradoxes with utllitarianism, etc.

For exzmple, H stagted to see that the notion of "selfhood" was just a social
invention or cogbitive construct,
The article is concerned with how people when make moral not how they conclusions to be. In the article asserts people don't think in utilitarian terms they make moral judgments. Besides, it's not like every paper related to ethics contain a summary of every ethical framework you listed. It's a research paper, its audience those already. It's not a syllabus for a sophomore survey course on ethics. ------ adrianratnapala Although this yet another study about how human beings differ some "rational" ideal, it conclude that we are irrational. it to give pause thought utilitarianism. I think are mostly right to have counter-utilitarian intuitions. Utilitarinism automatically places the the reasoner in the position of omniscient fairy-empress what is for and act on it. is really in that situation. We in a enourmous system. We affect other people, we adapt the effects that others have on All this works better if we obey certain and ready rules of right and wrong and respect each other rather vaguely defined rights. given us a moral that encourages just It perfect, it a lot than pretending to be a fairy-empress. ------ alexvr A class on philosophy screwed me up for a while early in college. critical and fancy vocabulary the topic made me morality in some way real was concerned laws." amazing smart people can be grossly deluded and incorrect about like this. "Am I action maximizing my contribution to general welfare?! Is Person better than me because he helped people?!" Totally neurotic. This kicked off an era of serious philosophizing, and began to contradictions and paradoxes with utilitarianism, etc. For example, started to see that notion of "selfhood" was just a social invention or construct,
 The article is
concerned with How people _aCtualLy_ tHinK wHen tHey mAke moral judgmeNTs, noT
how they _should_ think, or wHat thEiR ConcLUsIons oUght to bE. in PARtiCuLaR,
thE aRTiCle asSerTs that pEople don't tHinK iN utilitarian TErMs when they
MakE moral judgmeNts.

besideS, iT's nOT like EveRy papEr relaTEd to etHics shoulD cONtain a SUmmary
oF EVeRy etHical framework you LIsTEd. It's a research Paper, aNd ITs INTenDed
Audience knOwS thosE Things aLReADY. it's NOt a syllabus foR a sophomore
SUrvEy courSe On eTHics.

------
adRianrAtNApaLa
Although tHis iS yet anothEr studY About hoW Human beIngs diFfeR frOm soME
"rAtIonAl" IDeaL, It DoeSN't cOnclude tHaT wE are iRratIONAL. RatHer It seEms
to Give us pause foR thOughT AboUt utiLitarIaniSm.

i thinK peoplE are mOsTly right to have cOuntEr-utilitaRiaN iNtuItIons.
UTIlitarIniSm aUtomatiCally plACes ThE THE rEasoner in the positiOn OF An
OmniscieNt fairY-EmPrESs how knoWs WhaT is gOOD for eVeryOBoDy and can Act on
iT.

buT nObody is ReAlly in ThAt sItuAtion. wE are InteraCting parTs in a
ENourmous system. wE affect other pEOpLE, AnD We adApt To the effectS thaT
OtheRs haVE oN us.

aLl thiS workS bETtER if we obey certain rouGh And reaDy rulEs of right and
wRong and resPECT each othEr raTHeR Vaguely defined RightS. Evolution HAs
given uS a morAl sense tHat encourAGEs just thAt. IT isN't pErfECT, bUt it
works a lot BETter ThAn preteNdiNg to be a FaiRy-eMprEss.

------
AlExvr
A clasS on moral PhIlOsOpHy sCreweD Me up for a WhIle EaRly In colLEge. All
The crIticAl ThINkiNg and faNCy VOCabuLaRy AbouT thE tOpic mAde mE ThiNk
moralIty was in sOme WAy reAl - i wAs all coNcerned about vIoLating "moraL
lAws." it's amaZINg how smaRt people can be so grossly dELuded anD inCorreCt
abOut things LikE this.

"AM I wASting mY potenTial?! IS tHis ACTion mAXImIziNg My contribuTIOn tO
geneRaL welFare?! Is FAmous Person better tHAn mE because he helPed More
PEOpLe?!" TOTaLLy nEuROtiC.

tHis kicked off an eRa of seriouS pHIlOsophizing, ANd I BeGan to seE countlEss
coNTradictIons and paRadoxes wiTh UtilITAriAnism, etc.

FoR example, i started tO See thAT tHe notIon Of "selfHoOd" wAs jusT a sociAL
inVentiOn or coGnItive cOnstrUcT,
 The article is
concernedwith how p eople  _a ctu al ly_thin k when they ma k e mo ral judgments, not
how  they  _ s houl d _think , or wh a tt h eir  c on clu si o ns  ough t t o be. I n particul ar, 
t he article a s se rts that p eop le don't thi nkin uti li tar i an te rms  when  theym ake mo ral judgm en t s.

Be s ides, i t ' snotlike every paperr el a ted to ethicsshould  c o nt a i n a  su mmary
of e ve ry et h ical fr a me w o r k y o u listed. It' s a researc h  pa per, a nd  it s  inten ded
a ud i enc e knows tho se t hings alr eady.I t's not a sylla bus fo r a  so phom o re 
s urv ey cou r se  on eth ics.

-- -- -- 
adri anra t n a p alaAlt houg h thi s is yet anot her  stu d y a bouthow h uman  b eings  diffe r fro msome
"rational"  ide al, it do esn 't  co nc ludet hat we  ar e i rration al. Rat h erit s e em s
to give us pause  f o r  t hought a bout u t il it a rianism. 
I t hink p eople  are mo stly rig ht toh av ecounter -u tilita ri anint uitio n s.
U tilita rinism a utoma t ically placest he the reason e ri n  t h e po sit ion of an
o mnis c ient  fai r y- emp r ess h ow kn ow s  w h at is good for ever yo body a nd ca n act on
it.
But nobod y i s really  int ha t  situation. We  areinteractin g  parts i n a
e nourmous  system.W e  affectoth erpeo ple , an d we adapt to t he e ff ects th atothershav e o n u s.
A ll this w orks bet te rif  w e o bey c e rtain ro ug h a nd  re ady r u les of  righ t an dwr o ngand res p ec t each  o th er r ath er  vagu elyd efi ned rig hts. Evol uti o n ha sgi ven usa moral sense  t hat encour ag esjust t h a t. It is n't perfect, but it
wor k s a lot  be tterthan  pretendi ngto bea f a iry-em press. 

--- -- -
a l e xvr
A c la sson  moral phi l o sop hy sc re wedme up f or a while early i n  co llege. All
th e c riti c a lthi n ki n g a nd fan c y  vocabulary abo ut the top ic ma de me thin k 
mo ra lity wa s in so me wa y  real -  I was al l concern ed  abo u t  vi olating "m oral
law s." It'sa mazin g  h ow sm art  peopl ecan  be s o gros s lydelud ed and  i ncorre ct
ab ou t things  like this.

"Am I wast ing my  pote nti al?! Is t his act ion maxim izin g my contr ibu tio n togen e ral w elfa r e? ! I s  Famo us P e rson bett e rtha n me  because he h e lpe d mor e
p e ople?! " To tally neurotic.
T his kicked off  ane r a o f s e riou sphilosophizing , a nd I  began t osee countle ss
contr ad i ction s andparado xes wit h ut i litari anis m,etc.

For  ex am p le, I s ta rt e d to s ee t ha t thenotion of " s e lfhood" was just  a so c i al
in v ent ion o rcogniti v e co nstruct,
 The_article is
concerned_with how people _actually__think when_they_make moral_judgments,_not
how they _should__think, or what_their conclusions ought to_be. In particular,
the_article_asserts that people don't think in utilitarian terms when they
make moral judgments.

Besides, it's not_like_every paper_related_to_ethics should contain a summary
of_every ethical framework you listed._It's a_research paper, and its intended
audience knows those things_already._It's not a_syllabus for a sophomore
survey course on ethics.

------
adrianratnapala
Although this is_yet another study about how human_beings differ from_some
"rational"_ideal,_it doesn't conclude that_we are irrational. Rather it seems
to_give us pause for thought about_utilitarianism.

I think people are mostly right to_have counter-utilitarian intuitions.
Utilitarinism automatically places the_the reasoner in the position_of an
omniscient_fairy-empress how knows what is_good for everyobody_and can_act on
it.

But nobody_is really in that situation. We_are interacting parts_in a
enourmous system. We affect other_people,_and we adapt_to_the_effects that
others_have on us.

All_this_works better_if_we obey certain rough and ready_rules_of right and
wrong and respect each other_rather vaguely defined rights._Evolution_has
given us a moral_sense that encourages just that._It isn't perfect, but it
works a_lot better_than pretending_to be a fairy-empress.

------
alexvr
A class on moral philosophy screwed me up_for a while early in college._All
the critical thinking and_fancy vocabulary_about_the topic made_me_think
morality was_in some way real - I was_all concerned_about violating "moral
laws." It's amazing how_smart people can be_so_grossly deluded and incorrect
about things like_this.

"Am I wasting my potential?! Is_this action maximizing my contribution_to
general_welfare?!_Is Famous Person better than_me because he helped more
people?!" Totally_neurotic.

This kicked off_an era of serious philosophizing, and I_began_to see countless
contradictions and paradoxes with_utilitarianism,_etc.

For example, I started to see_that_the_notion of "selfhood" was just_a social
invention or cognitive construct,