Skip navigation
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01rj4307242
Title: Empathic Concern, Moral Epistemology, and Moral Progress
Authors: Lerner, Adam Jared
Advisors: Johnston, Mark
Leslie, Sarah-Jane
Contributors: Philosophy Department
Keywords: altruism
animal ethics
empathic concern
empathy
moral epistemology
psychopathy
Subjects: Ethics
Epistemology
Psychology
Issue Date: 2018
Publisher: Princeton, NJ : Princeton University
Abstract: In this dissertation, I argue that a specific form of empathy—empathic concern—has a crucial role to play in moral inquiry. I argue that experiences of empathic concern serve as a basic source of evidence regarding the strength of our reasons to help and not harm others, and that recognizing this can help us make progress on debates about the strength of our obligations to reduce animal suffering and extreme poverty. In chapter 1, I draw on work in cognitive science to argue that we would not be doxastically justified in holding certain moral beliefs unless empathic concern provided evidence of our reasons to help and not harm others. Since we are in fact doxastically justified in holding these beliefs, it follows that empathic concern must provide evidence of this sort. In chapter 2, I provide an account of how the evidence provided by empathic concern can improve moral judgment despite its various limits. I argue that just as visual perception can be a useful source of evidence despite its inherent limits, empathic concern can provide a useful source of evidence despite its inherent limits. I go on to provide an account of how we should go about collecting this evidence. I argue that to collect the evidence provided by empathic concern in the proper way, we would have to put ourselves in the favorable conditions identified at the end of chapter 1 whenever we harm someone or fail to help them. In chapter 3, I argue that we have decisive reason to believe that if we collected the evidence provided by empathic concern in the proper way, we would judge that we’re morally required to consume far fewer animal products than most of us do. I argue in chapter 4 that we have decisive reason to believe that if we collected the evidence provided by empathic concern in the proper way, we would judge that we’re morally required to give much more money to charity than most of us do. I argue further that we should defer to the judgments we would make under these conditions.
URI: http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/dsp01rj4307242
Alternate format: The Mudd Manuscript Library retains one bound copy of each dissertation. Search for these copies in the library's main catalog: catalog.princeton.edu
Type of Material: Academic dissertations (Ph.D.)
Language: en
Appears in Collections:Philosophy

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Lerner_princeton_0181D_12419.pdf722.84 kBAdobe PDFView/Download


Items in Dataspace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.