Is Rationalism In Nichols's Argument For Morality?

When we think of morality, what comes to mind? Are our actions merely based on what we feel we ought to do, or do we simply base our action on reason? In order to get a clear picture, we need to view all arguments that surround this question. To do this, we will be looking at research on psychopaths, to see if our morality falls on rationalism or sentimentalism. Throughout the years, morality was thought to be a rational concept. Meaning it is based on reason, independent of our emotional thoughts. As appealing as this argument is, is it plausible? Do we not base our moral judgments on what we feel is right and wrong? Nichols provides a more in depth explanation of rationalism by splitting it into two concepts. The first being conceptual rationalism, which explains that rationalism is just that, a concept; our judgments derived from what we believe is “required.” The other concept being empirical rationalism, which states that, our moral judgments are based on our …show more content…
He claims that psychopaths are unable to tell the difference between why something is morally wrong or commonly wrong. This shows that psychopaths do not make moral judgments on their own, they make judgments based on what they are told is right and what is wrong. Meaning they lack empathy, which is important when it comes to determining one’s capacity for moral judgments. But does this argument really say about psychopaths? Nichols’ argument points out that psychopaths suffer from relevant rational defects; they are less likely to differentiate between moral and conventional violations. This shows that while they understand right from wrong, they are unable to understand why something is morally wrong, which would mean they don’t have the capacity for moral judgments. If moral judgments are influenced by moral motivation, then psychopaths don’t support empirical