H. D. Saltzstein and T. Kasachkoff (2004) critique the social intuitionist model ( J. Haidt, 2001 ), but the model they critique is a stripped-down version that should be called the “possum” model. They make 3 charges about the possum model that are not true about the social intuitionist model: that it includes no role for reasoning, that it reduces social influence to compliance, and that it does not take a developmental perspective. After a defense of the honor of the social intuitionist model, this article raises 2 areas of legitimate dispute: the scope and nature of moral reasoning and the usefulness of appealing to innate ideas, rather than to learning and reasoning, as the origin of moral knowledge. This article presents 3 clusters of innate moral intuitions, related to sympathy, hierarchy, and reciprocity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonathan Haidt (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: