The Two Sources of Moral Standing
Review of Philosophy and Psychology, ISSN: 1878-5166, Vol: 3, Issue: 3, Page: 303-324
2012
- 67Citations
- 2Usage
- 56Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations67
- Citation Indexes67
- 67
- CrossRef18
- Usage2
- Abstract Views2
- Captures56
- Readers56
- 56
Article Description
There are two primary traditions in philosophical theorizing about moral standing-one emphasizing Experience (the capacity to feel pain and pleasure) and one emphasizing Agency (complexity of cognition and lifestyle). In this article we offer an explanation for this divide: Lay judgments about moral standing depend importantly on two independent cues (Experience and Agency), and the two philosophical traditions reflect this aspect of folk moral cognition. In support of this two-source hypothesis, we present the results of a series of new experiments providing evidence for our account of lay judgments about moral standing, and argue that these results lend plausibility to the proposed causal link between folk moral cognition and the philosophical traditions. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84873115007&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7; http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7; http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7.pdf; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7/fulltext.html; https://dc.etsu.edu/etsu-works/16249; https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=17515&context=etsu-works; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7; http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7; http://www.springerlink.com/index/pdf/10.1007/s13164-012-0102-7
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know