Domains of deontic reasoning: resolving the discrepancy between the cognitive and moral reasoning literatures.
Deontic reasoning has been studied in two subfields of psychology: the cognitive and moral reasoning literatures. These literatures have drawn different conclusions about the nature of deontic reasoning. The consensus within the cognitive reasoning literature is that deontic reasoning is a unitary phenomenon, whereas the consensus within the moral reasoning literature is that there are different subdomains of deontic reasoning. We present evidence from a series of experiments employing the methods of both literatures suggesting that people make a systematic distinction between two types of deontic rule: social contracts and precautions. The results call into question the prevailing opinion in the cognitive reasoning literature and provide further support for both an evolutionary view of deontic reasoning and the more domain-specific perspective found in the moral reasoning literature.
Fiddick
Laurence
L
Max Planck Insititue for Human Development, Berlin, Germany. fiddickL@ninds.nih.gov
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000339:Affect; D003071:Cognition; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D009014:Morals; D011340:Problem Solving