Does Moral Psychology Need Moral Theory? The Case of Self-Research

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    4 Citations (Scopus)


    Much has been written lately about the issue of fence mending versus fence crossing between moral philosophy and experimental social science. I focus on a specific manifestation of this issue, as instantiated in the recent debate between moral psychologists and philosophers on how the former should react to the fall of Kohlbergianism. Is it perhaps advisable to react by focusing on "psychologized morality" rather than, as Kohlberg did, on "moralized psychology"? I use recent self-research as a test case: Does moral psychology need moral theory to account for the self, or can it assume the kind of academic sovereignty that advocates of "psychologized morality" suggest? Although the eventual answer runs counter to the idea of "psychologized morality," I suggest that adherence to "moralized psychology" must be modified by some important caveats.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)816-836
    Number of pages21
    JournalTheory and Psychology
    Issue number6
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2009


    Dive into the research topics of 'Does Moral Psychology Need Moral Theory? The Case of Self-Research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this