Moral Psychology : A Long Standing Rationalist Tradition

What is morality? Where does our sense of morality come from and why is it important for us to know? The cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and scholar, Steven Pinker discusses this in his essay, “The Moral Instinct”. In this essay, Pinker claims that our morality sense is innate, it constantly changes, and it is universal among each culture. Pinker also explains that moral sense shapes our judgement as it is something that we value and seek in other people. The science of the moral sense is important since it shows how morality impacts our actions and it explains why we act in certain ways.

This paper explores the things that have influenced my moral worldview. It includes insight on what I consider when making decisions. I discuss who and what I look too when deciding my morals and what I consider to be right and wrong.

I infer several conclusions from Smith’s definition and analysis of sympathy. First, sympathy is a mode of perception. The “eye of the mind” or the imagination perceives the situation witch elicits primary sentiments and secondary agreeable or disagreeable sentiments which are the basis of moral judgement. Secondly, I conclude from Smith’s propositions that the mind is a passive recipient, therefore moral knowledge is a by-product of external stimuli. In other words our external sense stimuli provoke a change in our minds, from which our imaginations produce sentiments by which we judge the propriety or merit of another’s conduct.

In one experiment, involving various bad smells, it was noted that the participants that had been exposed to a mild-stink or strong-stink smell were more severe in their moral judgements than participants exposed to no bad smell. In all four experiments, the same results were obtained, participants that felt disgust were likely to be more severe in their judgments. This paper concludes that participants who believe in their intuitions were often tricked by outside forces, such as a bad smell. Noting this phenomenon, the paper suggests that self-awareness of these outside factors can help mitigate their effect. However, they also suggest it is not wise to completely remove somatic markers. In one study, the patients were not able to incorporate feelings and sensations into their decision making; as a result, the patients were unable to come to conclusions on any simple subject matter. The paper concludes that it is ok to rely on these intuitions even if they can be easily influenced, but it also says we must be aware of factors that can distort our intuitions. By following this methodology, one can mitigate making biased decisions due to his or her

Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development has served as basis of the investigation of many issues related to morality. Building on Piaget’s belief that the moral judgment of children derived from their cognitive development, Kohlberg attend to identify cognitive stages that underline the development of moral thinking.

Morality is a complicated matter, one which requires rationality, but is often driven by emotions. A person’s behavior is almost completely driven by emotions and often times emotions are what tell us when something might be wrong or right. Motivation also comes from emotions, so without feelings of anger, depression, frustration and the like we would hardly ever do anything in order to change things in our lives (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 258). Virtue ethics then is concerned with what makes a person virtuous versus vicious when it comes to making moral decisions, with emotions playing an important role. In this paper, I support Aristotle’s emphasis on emotions as a key to being virtuous, especially since emotions tell us what is important and motivate us to act (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 257-258).

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

In Shaun Nichols’ chapter, “How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is it Irrational to be Amoral?” Nichols attacks two views, which he refers to as the Conceptual Rationalist and the Empirical Rationalist. He argues that while a Kantian approach to moral

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).

Based on the book Everybody Does It by Thomas Gabor (1994), the universality of moral disengagement is seen in all kinds of people from all kinds of statuses and ways of life. Many psychological theories regarding morality have concentrated on the formal character of moral reasoning to the neglect of moral conduct. In the social cognitive theory of moral self, reasoning based on morals is linked to moral actions via

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.

Furthermore, it is proven that morals have an emotional basis, as recent studies in neuroscience and psychology have shown. In Moral Obligations, Jesse J. Prinz draws on some of these studies, in which researchers would measure brain activity while asking subjects to participate in various activities such as deliberating on moral predicaments, deciding whether something is morally right or wrong, showing them morally significant pictures, etc (Greene et al. 2001; King et al. 2006; Moll et al. 2002). Most studies tend to demonstrate that areas in the brain associated with emotion are the most involved in making a moral judgment concluding that emotions are a fundamental part of moral judgment in general (Prinz 2007, 272). It has also been shown that we are less likely to make wrong moral judgments when our negative emotions are reduced. In one study, “watching a comedy routine dramatically reduces the judgment that it is wrong to kill one person in order to save five” (DeSteno and Valdesolo 2006). Because there is such a clear connection between moral judgments and the emotional state we make them in, it follows that studying cognitive science is the answer to questions about whether morals are response-dependent or are response-independent.

Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg is widely known for his proposed stages of moral development; he argued that the development of moral reasoning “is a continual process that occurs throughout the lifespan.” (Cherry). Moreover, Kohlberg’s stages of moral development involve three levels, namely: the preconventional moral reasoning, conventional moral reasoning and postconventional moral reasoning. Each of these levels consists of two stages. Furthermore, we will examine Kohlberg’s stages of moral development by creating a character named Ciara. Ciara is a mischievous, temperamental and aggressive 11-year old who studies at a christian school. Throughout this essay we will see how Ciara’s moral reasoning will evolve.

For many people, they live their lives based on emotions. Emotions of happiness, love, success, and many more, could possibly be the most satisfying feelings. Except we commonly experience unpleasant emotions. There are emotions of anger, hatred, sadness, and disgrace. A very important question in the understanding of the human mind and highly related to cognitive science, is how do these emotions affect human cognition and the impact on our abilities to be rational? To tackle this question, we need to understand what emotions are, but not solely in the manner we are all familiar with, we need to understand them from a cognitive nature involving our physiology, psychology, and environment. Cognition, according to the Oxford definition

Morality is an important component of a human being because it helps shape the ethical foundation that every human being has. Whether to be good, evil, honest, or deceitful are just some of the traits morality helps us develop. Thus, it is evident that morality is a crucial component of a human being. However, what ultimately drives moral action? This question is debated and investigated against many philosophers, a few of them being Thomas Hobbes, Frans de Waal, and David Hume.