Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daniel DeNicola provides an interesting reconstruction of some aspects of Adam Smith's theory of morality and moral development.My response will focus on his claim that "Smith traces morality neither to reason nor to our ability to apprehend and apply principles, but rather to a natural capacity for emotional ties between people."I will argue that Smith's position is somewhat more complex and ambiguous, and suggest that aspects of Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments (TMS) are actually closer on a number of counts to a conception of morality of the kind proffered by Immanuel Kant than DeNicola's reading allows.For Smith, contrary to such views as Richard Rorty's "ethnocentrism" and Alasdair MacIntyre's virtue relativism, principles of universalization underwrite both the psychological nature and the moral justifications of our sympathies and sentiments, which are intricately bound up with the "impartiality" of the Impartial Spectator as a posited universally valid norm of moral assessment.Moral development, on this construal, is the progression of the will's movement from an empirical version of universalization to moral universalizability in Kant's sense.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".