The Secret Joke Of Kant's Soul Analysis

In his paper, 'The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul', Greene argues that deontological moral theory is a post hoc rationalisation. That is, although deontological philosophy claims to base its judgements in reason, deontological judgements are instead typically emotionally driven judgements which are then rationalised after the fact. In this analysis I will briefly explain Greene's argument, which is grounded in evolutionary theory, particularly evolutionary psychology, and backed up by empirical studies, all of which converge to give Greene's argument significant weight. Consequently, Greene's case ought to cause us to question the legitimacy of deontological philosophy, at least as a theory which is based on reason.

Greene asserts that people often behave and make choices without being aware of why they do so. Moreover, when questioned on their choices, people tend to reply with sensible sounding justifications. However, although a given justification might sound reasonable, psychological studies show that such justifications are often baseless, and instead, are merely post hoc rationalisations for emotionally driven choices, where the real motivation alludes the individual. Greene applies this
He posits that, given we are evolved social animals, we can expect to find alarm-like emotional reactions to personal moral dilemmas – the sort our ancestors would have faced – and less emotional reactions to impersonal ones – which are ancestors would not have faced – such as dilemmas involving overseas aid. Thus, we have been equipped by evolution with moral emotions which act as drivers for stereotypical judgements, that, on average, would have been beneficial for our ancestors in terms of reproductive success. For Greene, it is this very evolved moral psychology that underpins deontological philosophy, which is essentially automatic response to emotion evoking personal moral