The Psychology of Morality
Summary
TLDRThis script delves into the complexities of morality, exploring its philosophical, psychological, and societal aspects. It outlines the branches of moral philosophy, including meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. It highlights Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development and critiques them, suggesting that moral decisions are influenced by emotional responses rather than pure logic. The script also discusses the role of empathy in moral judgments and the societal implications of moral beliefs, emphasizing that morality is a dynamic construct shaped by interactions, emotions, and cultural influences.
Takeaways
- đ€ Morality is a complex subject with philosophical, psychological, and scientific dimensions.
- đ Moral philosophy is divided into three branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics, each with its own set of questions and concerns.
- đ¶ Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development suggests that individuals progress through six stages of moral reasoning, from preconventional to postconventional morality.
- 𧩠Kohlberg's stages are categorized into three levels: Preconventional Morality, Conventional Morality, and Postconventional Morality, each with two stages reflecting different aspects of moral reasoning.
- đ Psychologists study morality by examining how people make moral judgments and what motivates moral behaviors such as trust and cooperation.
- đ The Heinz Dilemma is a moral scenario used by Kohlberg to understand the reasoning behind moral decisions, focusing on why individuals make the choices they do.
- đ€ Moral development is influenced by factors such as learning from parents, societal norms, and personal experiences as one ages.
- đ€ Haidt's studies suggest that moral decisions are often driven by emotional, gut reactions rather than purely logical reasoning.
- đ The trolley problem illustrates the complexity of moral judgments and how they can be influenced by our emotional responses to different scenarios.
- đŁ Empathy plays a significant role in moral decision-making, influencing how we respond to the needs and suffering of others.
- đ Morality is not just an individual matter; it is also shaped by societal interactions, cultural norms, and our innate sense of right and wrong.
Q & A
What are the three main branches of moral philosophy?
-The three main branches of moral philosophy are meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. Meta-ethics deals with questions about the nature of morality and justice, normative ethics focuses on how people should behave and provides a framework for moral decisions, and applied ethics addresses specific practical moral questions.
What is the Heinz Dilemma and what does it illustrate?
-The Heinz Dilemma is a moral dilemma used by Lawrence Kohlberg to study moral development. It presents a scenario where a man named Heinz must decide whether to steal a life-saving drug for his wife, who is dying of cancer, from a druggist who is charging an exorbitant price. The dilemma illustrates the complexity of moral decision-making and is used to explore the reasoning behind an individual's moral choices.
What are the six stages of Kohlberg's theory of moral development?
-Kohlberg's theory of moral development consists of three levels, each with two stages. The first level, Preconventional Morality, includes stages one and two, where children's moral decisions are influenced by obedience, punishment, and personal needs. The second level, Conventional Morality, has stages three and four, where adolescents and adults internalize social norms and expectations, focusing on social roles and maintaining social order. The final level, Postconventional Morality, includes stages five and six, where individuals recognize differing values and opinions and may follow universal ethical principles even if they conflict with laws.
How does the script describe the role of emotions in moral decision-making?
-The script suggests that moral decisions are often driven by emotional, gut reactions rather than logical reasoning. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt and Joshua Green propose that our initial moral judgments are emotional responses that we later justify with reasoning.
What is the trolley problem and what does it reveal about moral judgments?
-The trolley problem is a classic moral dilemma that presents a scenario where a person must decide between allowing a trolley to kill five people or actively switching the trolley to kill one person instead. It reveals that our moral judgments are influenced by emotional responses and that we often find it more acceptable to let a harmful event occur passively rather than causing it actively, even if the outcome is the same.
How does the script discuss the relationship between empathy and moral behavior?
-The script discusses empathy as a fundamental human emotion that allows us to feel the feelings and experiences of others. It suggests that empathy has direct consequences for our moral responses to dilemmas and that individuals with higher empathy are more likely to make moral judgments that prioritize the well-being of others.
What criticisms are mentioned in the script regarding Kohlberg's theory of moral development?
-The script mentions that Kohlberg's theory has been criticized for focusing too heavily on justice and not taking into account other factors that might drive moral reasoning, such as compassion and empathy. Additionally, it points out that moral reasoning does not always translate into moral behavior.
What is the Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis proposed by Daniel Batson?
-The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis suggests that when individuals experience empathy for someone in need, it leads them to care more and offer more help. Empathy can drive moral behavior by influencing how we respond to moral dilemmas and the decisions we make.
How does the script explain the societal aspect of morality?
-The script explains that morality is not just about individual beliefs and actions but also involves how we interact with others and perceive their moral views. It discusses how feelings of gratitude, anger, guilt, and trust can shape our moral responses and how societal norms and expectations influence our moral judgments.
What does the script suggest as the origins of morality?
-The script suggests that the origins of morality are complex and involve a combination of basic intuitions like fairness and cooperation, emotional responses like empathy and anger, as well as our ability to reason, the influence of social situations, and the role of culture.
Outlines
đ€ Exploring Moral Philosophy and Psychological Perspectives
This paragraph delves into the complexities of moral decision-making, introducing the field of moral philosophy and its three main branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. It outlines the fundamental questions each branch seeks to answer, such as the nature of morality, societal behavior norms, and practical moral dilemmas. The script then shifts focus to the scientific exploration of morality by psychologists, who examine how individuals form moral judgments and the psychological processes involved. The Heinz Dilemma is presented as a case study, illustrating Kohlberg's theory of moral development, which is broken down into three levels with two stages each, reflecting a person's progression from obedience to internalized universal ethical principles.
đ Critique and Emotional Underpinnings of Moral Decisions
The second paragraph critiques Kohlberg's theory, highlighting its limitations, such as the distinction between moral reasoning and behavior and the emphasis on justice over other moral drivers like compassion. It then introduces the idea that moral decisions may be driven more by emotional responses than by logical reasoning, as suggested by psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Joshua Green. Haidt's study involving the scenario of siblings, Julie and Mark, is used to illustrate how moral judgments are often made first on an emotional level and then justified logically. The paragraph also presents the classic trolley problem to further explore the emotional and intuitive aspects of moral decision-making.
đ The Trolley Problem and the Role of Empathy in Moral Judgment
This section of the script uses the trolley problem to examine the impact of emotional responses on moral judgments. It contrasts the reactions to two versions of the problem, one involving pulling a lever and the other pushing a man, to demonstrate the inconsistency in our moral reasoning when it comes to direct versus indirect harm. The discussion then transitions to the role of empathy in moral decision-making, explaining how empathy can lead to more caring and helpful responses in moral dilemmas. The Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis by Daniel Batson is introduced, which posits that empathy can drive moral behavior more than logical reasoning.
đ Societal Morality, Cooperation, and the Origins of Morality
The final paragraph explores the societal context of morality, discussing how our moral views are influenced by our interactions with others and the emotions associated with cooperation and betrayal, such as gratitude, anger, and guilt. It suggests that these emotions shape our moral responses and behaviors. The paragraph also ponders the origins of morality, considering the interplay of basic intuitions, emotional responses, reasoning abilities, social situations, and cultural influences. It concludes by emphasizing that morality is not absolute but is shaped through our ongoing interactions and experiences with others.
Mindmap
Keywords
đĄMorality
đĄMoral Philosophy
đĄMeta-ethics
đĄNormative Ethics
đĄApplied Ethics
đĄLawrence Kohlberg
đĄPreconventional Morality
đĄConventional Morality
đĄPostconventional Morality
đĄEmpathy
đĄTrolley Problem
đĄPrisoner's Dilemma
Highlights
Difficult decisions in life often require us to discern right from wrong and good from bad, prompting questions about the existence of objective moral answers.
Moral philosophy is divided into three branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics, each addressing different aspects of morality.
Meta-ethics explores the nature of morality and justice, questioning the existence of moral truth.
Normative ethics provides a framework for determining right and wrong behavior.
Applied ethics focuses on practical moral dilemmas and the actions required to be a good person.
Psychologists study morality by examining what qualifies as moral and the psychological processes behind moral judgments.
Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development outlines three levels with two stages each, describing how moral understanding evolves from childhood to adulthood.
Preconventional Morality is characterized by obedience to avoid punishment and considering individual needs.
Conventional Morality involves internalizing societal norms and maintaining social order through adherence to rules.
Postconventional Morality signifies an abstract understanding of morality, with individuals recognizing differing values and universal ethical principles.
Critiques of Kohlberg's theory point out the distinction between moral reasoning and behavior, and the emphasis on justice over compassion.
Jonathan Haidt and Joshua Green propose that moral decisions are driven more by emotional reactions than logical reasoning.
Empirical studies suggest that moral judgments often follow an initial emotional response, which is then justified through reasoning.
The trolley problem illustrates the complex nature of moral decisions, showing that our gut reactions can influence our judgments more than logical outcomes.
Empathy, as a fundamental human emotion, plays a crucial role in moral judgments and behaviors, influencing how we respond to others' experiences.
Daniel Batson's Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis posits that empathy leads to increased caring and helping in moral situations.
The societal context of morality is shaped by our interactions with others, influencing our moral views and behaviors through emotions like gratitude, anger, and guilt.
Morality emerges from a combination of basic intuitions, emotional responses, reasoning abilities, social situations, and cultural influences.
The complexity of morality suggests that what is considered right or wrong is not absolute and is influenced by various factors.
Transcripts
In life we are often faced with difficult decisions. We may come across situations where we Â
have to ask ourselves, what is right and what is wrong? What is good and what is bad? While we may Â
have some sense of how to go about answering these questions, how do we know that we are correct? How Â
do we even know that there are objective answers to these questions? Philosophers have been Â
wrestling with morality for a long time. Thereâs actually a whole branch of philosophy called moral Â
philosophy. Moral philosophy has three main branches, each with its own specific set of Â
questions. The first branch, known as meta-ethics, asks big picture questions like: What is morality? Â
What is justice? Is there truth? Another branch is normative ethics. Normative ethics asks how should Â
people behave, and tries to provide a framework for deciding what is right and what is wrong. Â
The last branch, applied ethics, focuses on specific, practical moral questions. What Â
do we need to do to be a good person? Is it okay to lie, for example, to help a friend?Â
Of course, this isnât a philosophy lecture, so we donât need to answer these questions Â
right now. We will approach morality from that angle in a future philosophy series. Right now, Â
weâre interested in the science behind morality. Psychologists examine morality by asking things Â
like, what do people think qualifies as morality? What psychological processes are involved in Â
making moral judgements? What motivates behaviors linked to morality, like trust and cooperation?Â
Some psychologists are particularly interested in how morality develops. Do kids learn morality Â
from their parents or from society? How does morality change as a person ages? Psychologist Â
Lawrence Kohlberg tested these ideas by presenting a series of moral dilemmas to Â
participants of varying ages, and asking them to explain their reasoning. Hereâs one example Â
of a moral dilemma the participants might hear, which is called the Heinz Dilemma.Â
In this scenario, a woman was dying from cancer. There was only one drug that the doctors thought Â
would save her: a special form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. Â
The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him Â
to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. Â
The sick womanâs husband, Heinz, went around town and borrowed money to pay for the drug. Still, Â
he could only get $1,000, or half of what the druggist was charging. Heinz told the druggist Â
that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it for a lower price, or let him pay the full amount Â
later. But the druggist said: âNo, I discovered the drug and Iâm going to make money from it.â So Â
Heinz got desperate, broke into the druggistâs laboratory, and stole the drug for his wife.Â
So, was this the right thing to do? Kohlberg asked his participants if Heinz should have Â
stolen the drug, as well as the reasoning behind their decision. Kohlberg didnât care Â
if the participants thought Heinz was right or wrong. Instead, he wanted to know why they Â
made the moral decision they did. He used these answers to create a theory of moral development.Â
So how does morality develop? According to Kohlbergâs theory, moral development can be Â
broken down into three primary levels, each with two stages. The first level is Preconventional Â
Morality, which lasts until a person reaches around nine years old. At this level, Â
a childâs moral decisions are primarily shaped by the expectations of adults and consequences Â
for breaking the rules. What do the adults in my life think I should do? A child in Â
the first stage of Preconventional Morality understands morality through obedience and Â
punishment. Rules are fixed and absolute, and they need to be obeyed to avoid punishment. Â
When they reach stage two, children are able to account for an individualâs point Â
of view. In the Heinz dilemma, for instance, children reasoned that the ârightâ thing for Â
Heinz to do was the thing that best served his needs, so it was okay that he stole the drug.Â
The next level of moral development is Conventional Morality. This is the level Â
where adolescents and adults are internalizing the moral standards theyâve learned from others. Â
They are able to accept authority and the norms of the group theyâre a part of. Â
In stage three, people are focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an Â
emphasis on being a âgood boyâ or âgood girlâ, being ânice,â and having the respect of others. Â
Stage four is about maintaining social order. People begin to consider society as a whole Â
when making decisions and focus on maintaining order by following rules and doing oneâs duty.Â
The final level in Kohlbergâs theory is Postconventional Morality. This is when Â
people start to understand morality in an abstract manner. People begin at stage five to recognize Â
that others may have differing values, opinions, and beliefs. Rules are important to follow, Â
but all the members of a society should work together to agree on what the rules are. Â
Finally, stage six is when people have internalized universal ethical principles Â
and abstract values like dignity, equality, and justice. They will follow these principles even Â
if they conflict with laws. So if we look at the Heinz Dilemma, a person at stage six might say Â
that Heinz was right to steal the drug. Heinz did break a rule since stealing is against the law, Â
but it was unjust for the druggist to charge so much money for the drug and to let Heinzâs Â
wife eventually die just because Heinz couldnât pay the full price immediately.Â
Although itâs a decent theory, some have criticized Kohlbergâs stages of moral development. Â
For example, moral reasoning isnât the same as moral behavior. Just because we know whatâs right Â
doesnât mean weâll do whatâs right. Kohlberg also put a large emphasis on justice, and didnât take Â
into account other things that might drive moral reasoning, like compassion and empathy. Still, Â
Kohlbergâs theory of moral development played a critical role in the emergence of moral Â
psychology as a field. Today, researchers continue to study how moral development Â
emerges and how universal the stages really are. Understanding these stages offers some insight Â
into how children and adults make moral choices. Of course, the manner in which morality develops Â
is not the only question in moral psychology. Another question asks how we actually make our Â
decisions. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt and Joshua Green suggest that our Â
moral decisions are driven by emotional, gut reactions instead of logical reasoning.Â
Hereâs a scenario drawn from one of Haidtâs studies illustrating this idea. Quoting now Â
from the study: âJulie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in Â
France on summer vacation from college. One night, they are staying alone in a cabin Â
near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. Â
At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth Â
control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, Â
but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them Â
feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it okay for them to make love?âÂ
Now, most people will say that it was not okay for Julie and Mark to make love. But take a second and Â
try to come up with a justification for this conclusion. Why isnât it okay? You might say, Â
âthere could be genetic defects from inbreeding.â But they were using two forms of birth control Â
correctly, so itâs extremely unlikely that Julie will get pregnant. You could then say, Â
âThere could be emotional harm.â But they enjoyed it and the act brought them closer together. Â
One could then say, âItâs illegal.â Not in France as long as they were consenting adults, Â
which they were. Finally, one could resort to, âItâs disgusting and wrong.â They didnât Â
find it disgusting. Are private acts morally wrong if a lot of other people Â
find them disgusting? They were both consenting adults, using multiple forms of birth control, Â
and there was no lasting harm after the act. None of this is to condone incest of course, Â
it is simply to demonstrate that we can logically dismiss the most common moral Â
objections to incest, yet most people still find it to be morally wrong. This provides Â
evidence for Haidtâs point: we judge first and reason later. Moral reasoning is a way Â
of justifying judgements weâve already made after an emotional gut response to a situation.Â
Letâs look at the gut decisions behind moral reasoning through a classic moral dilemma Â
known as the trolley problem. Imagine there is an out-of-control trolley hurtling down some tracks. Â
Up ahead, the track splits into two different paths. On the path the trolley is currently on, Â
five people are tied to the tracks, and the trolley is headed straight towards them. Â
You are standing on the side of the tracks next to a lever. If you pull the lever, the trolley will Â
go down the other set of tracks. On this second set of tracks, there is a single person standing. Â
So what do you do? If you do nothing, the trolley will continue down the original path and kill Â
five people. If you pull the lever, the trolley will switch tracks, saving the five people but Â
killing the single person on this second set of tracks. What is morally right in this scenario?Â
Most people who are asked this question think itâs morally right to pull the switch. After all, Â
only one person would die instead of the original five. You save more lives by throwing the switch. Â
Now letâs change the scenario a little. A trolley is still hurtling down some tracks, Â
headed straight towards five people who are tied up. But instead of being next to a switch, Â
you are standing on a bridge above the tracks next to a very large man. Â
If you push the large man over the bridge, heâll fall on the tracks and will certainly Â
stop the trolley from running over the five people. Whatâs morally right in this scenario?Â
Set up in this manner, most people view it as morally wrong to push the man. Instead, Â
they let the trolley kill the five people on the track. But why? By not pushing the man, Â
more people die. Arenât five lives worth more than one life? If we were to apply the same logic as Â
in the previous example, we should conclude that the moral decision is to push the man, Â
since we will save more lives that way. But our gut reaction tells us that pushing a single person Â
to their death is worse than letting five people get run over. Somehow the act of pushing the man Â
seems different than pulling a lever, even though both result in the death of someone who would not Â
have died, had we not acted. Because our moral judgements are often driven by these emotional Â
reactions and not reasoned calculations, we tend to make these less-than-ideal moral judgements.Â
So whatâs driving these emotional, gut reactions? In many cases, our judgements and willingness Â
to help others is the result of empathy, a fundamental human emotion. Empathy is when we feel Â
the feelings and experiences of another person as if we were feeling it ourselves. Have you ever Â
flinched or moved your own limb when watching a movie where someone breaks their arm or leg? This Â
is a form of empathy. The 18th century economist Adam Smith described empathy as âWhen we see a Â
stroke aimed, and just ready to fall upon the leg or arm of another person, we naturally shrink and Â
draw back our own leg or arm, and when it does fall, we feel it in some measure, and are hurt by Â
it as well as the sufferer.â Empathy also allows us to experience both the happiness and misery of Â
other people through perspective-taking. We can put ourselves in the shoes of another and imagine Â
what they are feeling. Starting at birth, human infants will react with distress when they hear Â
the cries of other infants. After they reach a year old, they may also help others who are upset.Â
But what is the connection between empathy and morality? It turns out that empathy has Â
direct consequences for how we respond to moral dilemmas. Daniel Batson argues in his Â
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis that when weâre in a situation, we can either feel empathy Â
or think logically about an individual in need. Empathy in these scenarios leads people to care Â
more and offer more help. Experimentally, how people respond to the trolley problem and other Â
hypothetical situations is predicted by their empathy. For example, people who experience more Â
instinctive empathy and unease at even pretending to hurt others are much more likely to say that Â
pushing the man in the trolley problem is morally wrong. People who donât have a lot of empathy Â
for others are much more likely to exhibit psychopathy and make more immoral decisions.Â
Of course, having emotional, empathetic responses donât automatically make someone a good person. Â
But it seems like they are necessary and at the heart of our moral intuitions. Moral Â
judgement and behavior seems to be driven by basic emotional responses, and people who Â
lack these emotional responses seem to have very different moral judgments and actions.Â
Morality gets even more interesting when we put things into a societal context. Think about it, we Â
donât just care about our own beliefs and actions. We care about what strangers believe and how they Â
act. We also treat these moral views as serious and objective. A disagreement about the best Â
flavor of ice cream has a very different tone than one about murder. But where does this society-wide Â
sense of right and wrong come from? A lot of the complexity of morality stems from how we interact Â
with others. Remember the prisonerâs dilemma, the trust and cooperation game we talked about earlier Â
in the series? We can use peopleâs reactions to decisions made in this game to explore where Â
morality might come from. For example, we feel gratitude and fondness for people who cooperate Â
with us in the prisonerâs dilemma. This motivates us to be nice to them in the future. In contrast, Â
we feel anger and distrust toward those that betray us. This motivates us to betray or avoid Â
them in the future. We also feel guilt when we betray someone who cooperates with us. This Â
motivates us to behave better in the future. These different feelings and emotions will shape how we Â
respond to situations and what we view as moral. So the big question is of course, where does Â
morality come from? Moral judgement and behavior seems to be driven by both basic intuitions, Â
like fairness and cooperation, and emotional responses, like empathy and anger. But to fully Â
account for the complexity of morality, we also need to take into account our ability to reason, Â
the power of social situations, and the role of culture. Morality doesnât appear in a vacuum. Â
As we interact with others, we shape our moral views and our own future moral behavior. Whatâs Â
right and whatâs wrong isnât as black and white as one might first assume. But we Â
will have to put a pin in this discussion for now, and move on to other topics in psychology.
Voir Plus de Vidéos Connexes
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)