Christine Clavien

The recent increased prevalence of diseases related to unhealthy lifestyles raises difficulties for healthcare insurance systems traditionally based on the principles of risk-management, solidarity, and selective altruism: since these diseases are, to some extent, predictable and avoidable, patients seem to bear some responsibility for their condition and may not deserve full access to social medical services. Here, we investigate with objective criteria to what extent it is warranted to hold patients responsible for their illness and to sanction them accordingly. We ground our analysis on a series of minimal conditions for ‘practical’ and for ‘moral’ responsibility attribution. By applying these criteria consistently, we highlight that individual responsibility applies to risk-taking life choices rather than stigmatized sickness. We explain that responsibility is a matter of degree, that it varies across life-history, and can be affected by factors beyond the patients’ grasp. We point out that scientific knowledge about the effect of these factors generates responsibilities for other parties such as public health agencies and private industry. The upshot of our analysis is that health policies targeting the ‘liable’ undeserving sick are mostly unwarranted, and tend to increase unequal treatment of already vulnerable groups: the unlucky sick.

Good academic practice is more than the avoidance of clear-cut cheating. It also involves navigation of the gray zones between cheating and good practice. The existing literature has left students’ understanding of gray zone practices largely unexplored. To begin filling in this gap, we present results from a questionnaire study involving N = 1639 undergraduate students from seven European countries representing all major disciplines. We show that large numbers of these students are unable to identify gray area issues and lack sensitivity to the context dependence of these. We also show that a considerable proportion of students have a poor understanding of concepts like plagiarism and falsification, not only in gray zone scenarios, but also in cases of relatively clear-cut cheating. Our results are similar across the faculties and countries of study, and even for students who have attended academic integrity training. We discuss the implications of this for academic integrity training.

‘Emotions are Janus-faced,’ writes de Sousa. ‘This suggests that we might speak of a truth, or perhaps two kinds of truth of emotions, one of which is about the self, and the other about conditions in the world’. Emotions, it is claimed, disclose facts about how the world is and about who we are. The articles in this volume all focus on one, the other, or both of these aspects of emotions – How do they contribute to provide reasons for judgements and actions? How do these judgements and actions, individual or collective, serve as occasions for interrogation and evaluation of the self or of morality?

Plagiarism and other transgressions of the norms of academic integrity appear to be a persistent problem among upper secondary students. Numerous surveys have revealed high levels of infringement of what appear to be clearly stated rules. Less attention has been given to students’ understanding of academic integrity, and to the potential misconceptions and false beliefs that may make it difficult for them to comply with existing rules and handle complex real-life situations.In this paper we report findings from a survey of European upper secondary students’ views on issues relating to academic integrity. We relate these findings to the students’ training about academic integrity, self-reported level of questionable behavior and country of study.A total of 1654 students at 51 institutions located in 6 European countries participated in the study. The participants generally believed they had a good understanding of the rules applying to them and knew how to behave in compliance with norms of academic integrity. The results indicate, however, that often, in practice, this belief was mistaken. Many students had an inadequate understanding of core elements of academic integrity. They were uncertain about how to act, and they struggled in the handling of complex situations that require context-sensitive judgement. While some differences between countries were identified, they were modest and exhibited no clear pattern. Our results also suggest that reducing students’ level of uncertainty and, to a lesser degree, improving their level of knowledge could lead them to engage less in certain types of questionable behaviours. Surprisingly, the effect of academic training is modest and ambiguous. The study also confirms that perception of peer behaviour has the strongest association with student engagement in questionable behaviours. Thus, academic integrity at the upper secondary level cannot be explained simply in terms of individual ethics or knowledge.

‘Emotions are Janus-faced,’ writes de Sousa. ‘This suggests that we might speak of a truth, or perhaps two kinds of truth of emotions, one of which is about the self, and the other about conditions in the world’. Emotions, it is claimed, disclose facts about how the world is and about who we are. The articles in this volume all focus on one, the other, or both of these aspects of emotions – How do they contribute to provide reasons for judgements and actions? How do these judgements and actions, individual or collective, serve as occasions for interrogation and evaluation of the self or of morality?

Empathic concern is essential to our social lives because it motivates helping behavior. It has, however, well-known shortcomings such as its limitation in scope. Here, we highlight a further shortcoming of empathic concern: it contributes little to understanding the relevant features of complex social situations, and unaided by further cognitive inputs, likely fails to produce effective helping. We then elaborate on the conditions needed for an accurate assessment of others’ situations: the ability to pay attention and try to understand others for their own sake. We explain that when combining these abilities with the valuing aspect of empathic concern, we obtain “availability”, an understudied mental state which plays a crucial role in helping motivation. We provide a detailed definition of that notion and show how availability can be trained and exercised by health professionals in order to improve their care and relationships with patients.

Altruism is a deep and complex phenomenon that is analysed by scholars of various disciplines, including psychology, philosophy, biology, evolutionary anthropology and experimental economics. Much confusion arises in current literature because the term altruism covers variable concepts and processes across disciplines. Here we investigate the sense given to altruism when used in different fields and argumentative contexts. We argue that four distinct but related concepts need to be distinguished: (a) psychological altruism , the genuine motivation to improve others’ interests and welfare; (b) reproductive altruism , which involves increasing others’ chances of survival and reproduction at the actor’s expense; (c) behavioural altruism , which involves bearing some cost in the interest of others; and (d) preference altruism , which is a preference for others’ interests. We show how this conceptual clarification permits the identification of overstated claims that stem from an imprecise use of terminology. Distinguishing these four types of altruism will help to solve rhetorical conflicts that currently undermine the interdisciplinary debate about human altruism.

Altruism is a malleable notion that is understood differently in various disciplines. The common denominator of most definitions of altruism is the idea of unidirectional helping behaviour. However, a closer examination reveals that the term altruism sometimes refers to the outcomes of a helping behaviour for the agent and its neighbours – i.e. reproductive altruism – and sometimes to what motivates the agent to help others – i.e. psychological altruism. Since these perspectives on altruism are crucially different, it is important to use a clear terminology to avoid confusion. In particular, we show that the notion of altruism used by biologists profoundly differs from the ones used by philosophers, psychologists and economists in cross-disciplinary debates about human altruism.

This paper examines key aspects of Allan Gibbard's psychological account of moral activity. Inspired by evolutionary theory, Gibbard paints a naturalistic picture of morality mainly based on two specific types of emotion: guilt and anger. His sentimentalist and expressivist analysis is also based on a particular conception of rationality. I begin by introducing Gibbard's theory before testing some key assumptions underlying his system against recent empirical data and theories. The results cast doubt on some crucial aspects of Gibbard's philosophical theory, namely his reduction of morality to anger and guilt, and his theory of “normative governance.” Gibbard's particular version of expressivism may be undermined by these doubts

« Je t’aime moi non plus », le titre de la fameuse chanson de Gainsbourg reflète de manière exquise ce que la vie a de beau et d’amer à la fois. A défaut de traiter d’amour, cet ouvrage analyse les méandres de l’aide à sens unique. L’altruisme, ce comportement de don sans attente de retour de service, est abordé ici de manière scientifique et philosophique plutôt que poétique et littéraire. Un objectif est d’en traquer les mécanismes sous-jacents, ceux qui échappent à tout romantisme et se traduisent souvent en calculs de coûts et bénéfices. Il s’agit également d’approfondir les diverses manières de comprendre et de pratiquer l’altruisme. Souvent considéré comme une des plus grandes vertus humaines, l’objet de nombreux écrits philosophiques et psychologiques, l’altruisme peut-il se trouver chez les abeilles et les marmottes ? Posez la question à un biologiste de l’évolution et il vous répondra « Mais oui, évidemment ! ». A première vue, une telle réponse est consternante mais nous verrons qu’à y regarder de plus près, les philosophes et les biologistes ne parlent pas exactement de la même chose en utilisant le même terme. L’hétérogénéité des disciplines intéressées à l’altruisme et des contextes théoriques dans lesquels il est utilisé en ont fait une notion extrêmement complexe et difficile à saisir. Au sein des différentes sciences sociales et du vivant, l’altruisme est un élément pivot dans trois débats dont cet ouvrage prend le temps de retracer les contours. Tantôt, l’altruisme se profile en danger (apparent) pour la théorie de l’évolution darwinienne (chap. 1), tantôt, il sert de cheval de bataille dans la croisade contre l’idéal de l’homo economicus si souvent prôné en économie (chap. 2 et 3), tantôt il est une énigme à découvrir dans les méandres de nos motivations intimes (chap. 3). Dans le cadre de ces différents débats, la notion d’altruisme prend des significations sensiblement différentes. Pour en rendre compte, l’ensemble de l’ouvrage s’articule autour d’une triple distinction fondamentale : l’altruisme peut être compris au sens biologique, comportemental ou psychologique. Chacune de ces notions est utilisée dans un contexte spécifique au sein de sciences qui ont leurs propres traditions et leurs propres débats internes. La structure de l’ouvrage est organisée en fonction de cette triple distinction. Le premier chapitre est consacré à l’altruisme biologique, définit en termes de valeur de survie et de reproduction (fitness) : un comportement est altruiste s’il a pour effet d’augmenter la fitness d’autrui aux dépens de sa propre fitness. L’observation de comportements altruistes au sein du monde animal a posé un des plus grands défis à la théorie de l’évolution depuis la publication de l’Origine des espèces. Des générations de biologistes se sont attelés à la tâche d’expliquer comment un comportement qui augmente la fitness biologique d’autres organismes aux dépends de la fitness de l’agent a pu être sélectionnée au fil de l’évolution. Nous verrons que c’est grâce aux travaux de William Hamilton et d’autres que cette difficulté a pu être résolue. Le deuxième chapitre retrace les attaques d’une frange d’économistes (supportés dans leur effort critique par des théoriciens des jeux et anthropologues évolutionnistes), contre le modèle classique de l’homo economicus. Leur objectif est de montrer que des personnes ordinaires ne se comportement souvent pas en maximisateurs rationnels de leurs gains propres, comme le prédirait la théorie économique néo-classique. Dans le cadre de ce débat, c’est du comportement social spécifiquement humain et plus particulièrement de l’altruisme humain dont il est question. Le terme d’altruisme est alors utilisé dans un sens plus lâche que ne le font les biologistes ; ce que l’on appellera l’altruisme comportemental comprend les actions coûteuses pour l’agent et avantageuses pour autrui. La particularité humaine fournira également l’occasion de traiter la délicate question des rapports entre l’évolution génétique et la culture. Nous verrons que l’étude du comportement animal fournit les premiers éléments d’explication de l’altruisme humain, mais ce dernier ne peut être pleinement compris qu’au terme d’une analyse qui tient compte des capacités qui nous sont propres. Cette analyse nous permettra de saisir pourquoi les êtes humains sont à la fois plus sociaux et plus opportunistes (la contradiction n’est qu’apparente) que les autres espèces animales. Malgré leurs différences, les versions biologique et comportementale de l’altruisme sont très proches au sens où elles traitent des conséquences de comportements. Ces notions ne reflètent qu’imparfaitement la conception ordinaire que nous nous faisons de l’altruisme. L’altruisme tel qu’il est utilisé dans le langage courant correspond davantage à l’image que s’en font les philosophes et les psychologues. Pour déceler les actions altruistes, ces derniers se demandent généralement si elles ont été causées par un motif dirigé vers le bien d’autrui. En ce sens, on parle d’altruisme psychologique qui réfère aux causes plutôt qu’aux effets des actions d’aide. Le troisième chapitre est consacré aux débats qui font rage autour de la question de savoir si les êtres humains sont capables d’agir de manière altruiste psychologique, c’est-à-dire en fonction de motifs exclusivement dirigés vers le bien-être d’autrui. Nous verrons à quel point cette tâche est ardue à moins d’accepter de reformuler la question en termes de motivation primaire à l’action. Au terme de l’analyse, il apparaitra que les trois notions d’altruisme se croisent sans se recouper dans un enchevêtrement de liens plus ou moins complexes. Nous verrons par exemple que l’altruisme biologique (voire comportemental) pourrait bien être une condition nécessaire à l’évolution de l’altruisme psychologique ; des liens tangibles peut ainsi être tissés entre ces différentes notions. Les diverses approches du phénomène de l’altruisme retracées dans cet ouvrage fournissent également des clefs de compréhension des méandres du comportement social animal et plus particulièrement humain. De manière générale, sans apporter de solutions toutes faites, cet écrit peut servir de guide sémantique et initie le lecteur à une littérature interdisciplinaire émergeante, foisonnante, passionnante quoique encore souvent parsemée de confusions et de contradictions.

L�éthique évolutionniste est un courant qui cherche à introduire le point de vue de l�évolution dans la philosophie morale. Plus précisément, les tenants de cette approche s�inspirent de données issues de différentes sciences comme la biologie évolutive, la théorie des jeux, la neurobiologie, la psychologie évolutionniste, etc., pour aborder des questions traditionnellement traitées en philosophie morale. Évidemment, il y a bien des façons d�utiliser ce matériau et c�est ce que je me propose d�explorer dans cet article. Mon but est de saisir les limites et les possibilités d�une éthique évolutionniste. Je conclurai sur une note positive en faveur de ce courant philosophique

The two main goals of this paper are to question the possibility of the existence of moral emotions and to decipher the notion of moral emotion. I start with a brief critical analysis of various philosophical understandings of moral emotions before setting out an evolutionary line of approach that seems promising at first glance: according to the functional evolutionary approach, moral emotions have the evolutionary function of sustaining cooperation. It turns out ultimately that this approach has its own drawbacks. I finally propose to give up the idea of moral property intrinsic to some emotions; “moral” seems instead merely to label emotions when they occur in morally relevant contexts

Over the last few years, there has been a surge of work in a new field called “moral psychology”, which uses experimental methods to test the psychological processes underlying human moral activity. In this paper, I shall follow this line of approach with the aim of working out a model of how people form value judgements and how they are motivated to act morally. I call this model an “affective picture”: ‘picture’ because it remains strictly at the descriptive level and ‘affective’ because it has an important role for affects and emotions. This affective picture is grounded on a number of plausible and empirically supported hypotheses. The main idea is that we should distinguish between various kinds of value judgements by focusing on the sort of state of mind people find themselves in while uttering a judgement. “Reasoned judgements” are products of rational considerations and are based on preliminary acceptance of norms and values. On the contrary, “basic value judgements” are affective, primitive and non-reflective ways of assessing the world. As we shall see, this analysis has some consequences for the traditional internalism-externalism debate in philosophy; it highlights the fact that motivation is primarily linked to “basic value judgements” and that the judgements we openly defend might not have a particular effect on our actions, unless we are inclined to have an emotional attitude that conforms to them.

Despite the widespread use of the notion of moral intuition, its psychological features remain a matter of debate and it is unclear why the capacity to experience moral intuitions evolved in humans. We first survey standard accounts of moral intuition, pointing out their interesting and problematic aspects. Drawing lessons from this analysis, we propose a novel account of moral intuitions which captures their phenomenological, mechanistic, and evolutionary features. Moral intuitions are composed of two elements: an evaluative mental state and a feeling of rightness (FOR). We illustrate the phenomenology of the FOR with examples of non-moral and moral cases, and provide a biological and mechanistic account: the emergence of human reasoning capacities created a need for the co-evolution of a psychological system producing the feeling of rightness (the FORs). This system is triggered when we experience conflicting evaluations. The FORs renders evaluations resulting from rational deliberation less compelling than the evaluations produced by simple evolved systems. It thus facilitates optimal decision-making, preventing excessive interference by rational deliberation. Our account sheds light on why moral intuitions are so frequently experienced and why they are so compelling and resistant to argument. In addition, the account fuels interesting speculations about common metaethical intuitions.

The punishment of social misconduct is a powerful mechanism for stabilizing high levels of cooperation among unrelated individuals. It is regularly assumed that humans have a universal disposition to punish social norm violators, which is sometimes labelled “universal structure of human morality” or “pure aversion to social betrayal”. Here we present evidence that, contrary to this hypothesis, the propensity to punish a moral norm violator varies among participants with different career trajectories. In anonymous real-life conditions, future teachers punished a talented but immoral young violinist: they voted against her in an important music competition when they had been informed of her previous blatant misconduct toward fellow violin students. In contrast, future police officers and high school students did not punish. This variation among socio-professional categories indicates that the punishment of norm violators is not entirely explained by an aversion to social betrayal. We suggest that context specificity plays an important role in normative behaviour; people seem inclined to enforce social norms only in situations that are familiar, relevant for their social category, and possibly strategically advantageous.

In this paper, I reframe the long-standing controversy between ‘psychological egoism’, which argues that human beings never perform altruistic actions, and the opposing thesis of ‘psychological altruism’, which claims that human beings are, at least sometimes, capable of acting in an altruistic fashion. After a brief sketch of the controversy, I begin by presenting some representative arguments in favour of psychological altruism before showing that they can all be called into question by appealing to the idea of an unconscious self-directed motive. I will then point out that this argumentative strategy not only debunks the reasons for favouring psychological altruism, but also those for favouring psychological egoism; hence it is no use in settling the dispute between the two views. In the second part of the paper, I will try to break this deadlock by reframing the whole controversy, shifting it away from the concept of motive, towards the broader notion of motivation. As it turns out, this shift enables the debate to centre on altruistic emotions and their motivational power, thereby allowing evolutionary arguments to enter the debate and tilt the balance in favour of psychological altruism.

This paper contains an ‘affective picture’: a story, extensively supported by empirical data, about the way I take people to judge and behave morally; a picture in which the respective roles of reflective and affective processes are explained. According to this picture, different sorts of judgements have to be distinguished, some being cognitively more complex than others. ‘Sophisticated judgements’ are displayed at the level of rational considerations and allow for moral thinking, whereas ‘basic value judgements’ are a primitive and nonreflective way of assessing the world and are motivating. As we shall see, this affective picture has some consequences for the traditional internalismexternalism debate in philosophy; it highlights the fact that motivation is primarily linked to ‘basic value judgements’ and that the norms and judgements we openly defend do not have a particular effect on our actions, unless we are inclined to have an emotional attitude that conforms to them. Key words: affect, emotion, emotional reaction, externalism, internalism, justification, moral judgement, motivation, norm, value

Numerous studies show that humans tend to be more cooperative than expected given the assumption that they are rational maximizers of personal gain. As a result, theoreticians have proposed elaborated formal representations of human decision-making, in which utility functions including “altruistic” or “moral” preferences replace the purely self-oriented "Homo economicus" function. Here we review mathematical approaches that provide insights into the mathematical stability of alternative ways of representing human decision-making in social contexts. Candidate utility functions may be evaluated with help of game theory, classical modeling of social evolution that focuses on behavioral strategies, and modeling of social evolution that focuses directly on utility functions. We present the advantages of the latter form of investigation and discuss one surprisingly precise result: “Homo economicus” as well as “altruistic” utility functions are less stable than a function containing a preference for the golden rule or for the common welfare that is only expressed in social contexts composed of individuals with similar preferences. We discuss the contribution of mathematical models to our understanding of human other-oriented behavior, with a focus on the classical debate over psychological altruism. We conclude that human can be psychologically altruistic, but that psychological altruism evolved because it was generally expressed towards individuals that contributed to the actor’s fitness, such as own children, romantic partners and long term reciprocators.

To understand the human capacity for psychological altruism, one requires a proper understanding of how people actually think and feel. This paper addresses the possible relevance of recent findings in experimental economics and neuroeconomics to the philosophical controversy over altruism and egoism. After briefly sketching and contextualizing the controversy, we survey and discuss the results of various studies on behaviourally altruistic helping and punishing behaviour, which provide stimulating clues for the debate over psychological altruism. On closer analysis, these studies prove less relevant than originally expected because the data obtained admit competing interpretations – such as people seeking fairness versus people seeking revenge. However, this mitigated conclusion does not preclude the possibility of more fruitful research in the area in the future. Throughout our analysis, we provide hints for the direction of future research on the question.

Evolutionary ethics (EE) is a branch of philosophy that arouses both fascination and deep suspicion. It claims that Darwinian mechanisms and evolutionary data on animal sociality are relevant to ethical reflection. This field of study is often misunderstood and rarely fails to conjure up images of Social Darwinism as a vector for nasty ideologies and policies. However, it is worth resisting the temptation to reduce EE to Social Darwinism and developing an objective analysis of whether it is appropriate to adopt an evolutionary approach in ethics. The purpose of this article is to ‘dedemonise’ EE while exploring its limits. I shall begin by presenting two ways of integrating a Darwinian way of thinking into the context of social and political sciences : Social Darwinism and what one could label ‘Pro-social Darwinism’. Next I will point out some of the fundamental errors on which Social Darwinism is grounded; this will help in understanding why contemporary evolutionary ethicists cannot possibly hold the views defended by this theory (unless they are inclined to intellectual dishonesty). On the contrary, EE seems more akin to a Pro-social Darwinian approach, except for the fact that it restricts its reflections to theoretical ethics. The second part of the paper (sections 3 to 7) provides a clear and detailed picture of EE as well as an analysis of its relevance at the different levels of ethics (descriptive, meta-, normative and practical). Special focus will be given to questions relating to the genesis of morals and the delicate shift from facts to norms.

This paper examines three specific issues raised by The Ethical Project. First, I discuss the varieties of altruism and spell out the differences between the definitions proposed by Kitcher and the ways altruism is usually conceived in biology, philosophy, psychology, and economics literature. Second, with the example of Kitcher’s account, I take a critical look at evolutionary stories of the emergence of human ethical practices. Third, I point to the revolutionary implications of the Darwinian methodology when it is thoughtfully applied to ethics.