Moral Decision Making Is Not Independent Of Trait Anger

Over the last decades, research in moral psychology was dominated by the role of reasoning in making moral judgments (Kohlberg, 1969; Turiel, 1983), while a more recent research emphasizes the role of automatic emotional processes (Blair, 1995; Haidt, 2001; Pizzaro & Salovey, 2002). Therefore, there has been a great tension to whether intuitions or reasons play critical role in making moral judgments.

While the participants of this study may have higher NFC as university students, their likelihood of wanting to engage in effortful thinking does not reflect a high cognition in dilemmas. In addition, having the participants to rate their response does not engage cognitive thinking or moral emotions as much as being forced with a yes-no option in a situation. One would feel urgency to make an instantaneous decision, rather than to take time and weigh their affective or rational judgement. According to Haidt’s Social Intuition Model(2001), moral emotion fuels moral judgement, giving moral responses while reasoning is a post-hoc process to provide rational support to responses. Reasoning process may not be activated until after utilitarian response is made which is slower and requires effort; responses are then made by

These factors include gender, age, nationality, and religion as well as education and experience also influences the way that individuals make ethical decisions (Craft, 2012). Factors like these influence the counselor’s values which alters their ethical decision-making ability. Craft (2012) suggests that personality traits such as self-control, mindfulness, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experience also influence ethical decision-making. Additionally, implicit attitudes, while not impacting moral judgment did affect the predictability of ethical decision-making of an individual. The author also suggests that factors such as the affective state of the individual can affect their decision-making

When an individual is proposed with a moral dilemma they will often seek the advice of others rather than acting solely upon their immediate cultural, familial, and cognitive predispositions; suggesting that judgments are also made about the moral judgments of others (Rest, Cooper, Coder, Masanz & Anderson, 1974).

Throughout the course of history, there have been many philosophers with different ideologies. These philosophers have written various works to spread and support their ideologies. One philosopher who wrote about moral thinking and judgement was Hume, supporting his ideologies in An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. In this written work he stated that the ultimate source of moral judgement was feelings. Additionally, he states that an individual’s moral thinking was influenced by reason.

Although moral principles have gained increasing recognition due to their usefulness for the society, i.e. for pragmatic reasons, the evolution of ethics had different roots – psychological and spiritual. It is based on the person’s ability for empathy: which is the basis of moral behavior of a person, his kindness, and decency. It can be argued that the ability for empathy separates man from the world of animals. With the development of spirituality and feelings of compassion, people began to feel uncomfortable by the fact that their actions were constantly associated with the infliction of suffering to other beings, and even their death. Even in ancient times, high minds have concluded that man,

In order to investigate moral decision making among Catholics, the following hypothesis will be explored:

Where this study and the field in general lack is the knowledge of how these influences effect moral thought and behaviour in conflict in the real world. Graham et al. suggest that implementing a combination of individual and cultural differences as well as the situational determinants may help the two major challenges. The first is predicting when and for whom will moral judgements relate to their displayed moral behaviour, and secondly, predicting a more complete list of morally relevant behaviours (Graham, Meindl, & Beall, 2012). The assumptions that Graham et al. make in their paper unheeded of the cultural differences as Henrich et al. discussed. This prevents the common person from understanding the full implications of a cultural and individual differences and how it can combine with the situational determinants to produce a better and clearer image of what thought processes exactly go into the judgements that are manifested outwardly as moral behaviours, which is why more studies should take place in 'untraditional'

Many studies have shown that different experimentally primed positive or negative emotions lead to various tendencies in decision making (cite). According to previous accounts, negative emotions tend to reduce processing capacity (Conway & Giannopoulos, 1993; Ellis & Ashbrook, 1988; Eysenck, 1982; Sanbonmatsu & Kardes, 1988); however, recent studies have shown that different negative emotions with the

When talking about intuitions, I will consider them as being automatic and immediate emotional responses that are rigid and inflexible (Greene 2013: 15; Sidgwick 1907: 97). In this way, intuitions can be thought of as the 'gut feelings ' we experience when faced with different scenarios, which act to prompt immediate judgements and exert pressure on behaviour (Sidgwick 1907: 97). That is, our intuitions work as automatic processes which tell us what to do, without us having to consciously think or reflect (Greene 2013: 135). When considering moral intuitions, in particular, we are merely narrowing our focus to the intuitions that we encounter when faced with moral problems. For example, when our gut tells us that something like incest is

An intuitive moral judgment is immediate judgment that requires no thinking or reflection. In other words, an intuitive moral judgment is simply a judgment we make with a minimum of thinking about it. An intuitive moral judgment is an automatic response to our understanding of a situation or an action. Many moral psychologists believe that moral intuitions are mainly based on our feelings rather than reasoning.

Moral emotions and intuition come first and directly cause moral judgment (Shweder & Haidt, 1993). Researchers use personal moral dilemmas in order to test the association between moral emotions and moral judgment. Personal moral dilemmas and judgments concern the appropriateness of personal moral violations (Greene et al., 2004). The footbridge dilemma is an example of a personal dilemma (Thomson, 1986). A trolley is racing down a track towards five workmen on the track who will be killed if nothing is done to the trolley. You and a large stranger are standing in between the trolley and the five workmen. The only way to save the five people is to push the stranger next to you onto the track to stop the oncoming trolley but he will die in the process. Most people would not push the stranger onto the track (Greene et al., 2001). Not pushing the stranger is a deontological response (do not kill innocents), whereas pushing the stranger is a utilitarian response (greatest good for greatest number). In Choe and Min’s study (2011), it was concluded that disgust propensity had a negative correlation to utilitarian judgment, while trait anger had correlated positively to utilitarian judgment. They had a variety of personal moral scenarios that were randomised and given to the participants, who were asked to choose an emotion that they felt. In order to have a better understanding

Does gender play a role in the behavior of individuals, holding them accountable for their ethical actions? Wang et al., (2015) also examined the possibility that the results for gender were not clear-cut but reflected the effect of gender on ethical awareness and behavior. Furthermore, gender as described, is an individual factor impacting moral judgments. Influenced by a variety of individual factors, moral judgment is the outcome of the ethical decision making process.

Understanding ethical behavior from a process standpoint can enhance individual’s ability to recognize and respond accordingly to ethical dilemmas. A model developed by psychologist James Rest consists of four components of ethical behavior. The four components in this model are: moral sensitivity, moral judgement, moral motivation, and moral character (Johnson, 2016). This paper will provide a brief overview of each component and how it can affect an individual’s decision making method. Also discussed will be practices which can be employed to improve skills in each separate component.

Although it 's of value, and in some cases imperative, to listen to one 's intuitions, it is not always beneficial or healthy to do so when presented with a moral question. It most certainly does not benefit an individual or others to blindly trust the immediate answers that leap into our minds when posed with a moral consideration. Consider the value of reasoning and intuition in the broad scope. To feel is live, but to think is live as well. Our experiences are shaped by how we feel and what we think. One needs to think about their feelings just as one needs to feel. It is this act of conscious living that gives meaning to our experiences and helps us interact with others.