Understanding Violence [electronic resource]: The Intertwining of Morality, Religion and Violence: A Philosophical Stance / by Lorenzo Magnani.
Contributor(s): SpringerLink (Online service).Material type: BookSeries: Studies in Applied Philosophy Epistomology and Rational Ethics; -1.Description: XVI, 340p. online resource.ISBN: 9783642219726 99783642219726.Subject(s): Engineering | Engineering | APPL.MATHEMATICS./ COMPUTATIONAL METHODS OF ENGINNEERING | PHILOSOPHY OF MAN | ETHICS | ETHICS | ENGINEERING MATHEMATICS | COMPUTATIONAL INTELIGENCE | PHILOSOPHYDDC classification: 006.3 Online resources: ir a documento
|Item type||Current location||Collection||Call number||Vol info||Copy number||Status||Date due||Barcode||Item holds|
|DOCUMENTOS DIGITALES||Biblioteca Jorge Álvarez Lleras||Digital||006.3 223 (Browse shelf)||Ej. 1||1||Available||D000764|
"Military Intelligence" -- The Violent Nature of Language -- Moral Bubbles: Legitimizing and Dissimulating Violence -- Moral and Violent Mediators -- Multiple Individual Moralities May Trigger Violence -- Religion, Morality, and Violence.
This volume sets out to give a philosophical "applied" account of violence, engaging with both empirical and theoretical debates in other disciplines such as cognitive science, sociology, psychiatry, anthropology, political theory, evolutionary biology, and theology. The book's primary thesis is that violence, also understood as violence beyond the domain of physical harm, is inescapably intertwined with morality and typically enacted for "moral" reasons. To show this, the book compellingly demonstrates how morality operates to trigger and justify violence and how people, in their violent behaviors, can engage and disengage with discrete moralities. By employing concepts such as "coalition enforcement", "moral bubbles", "cognitive niches", "overmoralization", "military intelligence" and so on, the book aims to spell out how perpetrators and victims of violence systematically disagree about the very nature of violence. The author's original claim is that disagreement can be understood naturalistically, described by an account of morality also informed by evolutionary perspectives.