In the paper, I aim to reconstruct a charitable interpretation of Durkheimian utilitarianism, a normative theory of public morality proposed by well-recognised American moral psychologist – Jonathan Haidt, which might provide reasons to justify particular legal regulations and public policies. The reconstruction contains a coherent theory that includes elements of rule-utilitarianism, value pluralism, objective list theory and perfectionism, as well as references to Emile’s Durkheim views on human nature. I also compare Durkheimian utilitarianism with two similar theories – Brad Hooker’s rule consequentialism and Krzysztof Saja’s institutional function consequentialism.

The main aim of the author is to analyze the term “moral intuitions”, used in discussions pertaining to moral luck. He presents the contemporary psychological estimation of moral intuitions based on the research of Jonathan Haidt (Social Intuitionist Model) and philosophical moral intuitionism. He claims that these two approaches do not have one subject of interest; hence, psychologists and philosophers study two different phenomena, both of which can serve as grounds for discussion concerning moral luck. However, the author concludes that there are valid reasons to question the normative status of moral intuitions in both psychological and philosophical senses, proving the discussion to be very complicated. On the other hand, he names coherentism as a possible cipher to adequately describe or even solve the problem of moral luck.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract