The Psychology of Morality

Summary

This 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

• 🤔 Morality is a complex subject with philosophical, psychological, and scientific dimensions.
• 📚 Moral philosophy is divided into three branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics, each with its own set of questions and concerns.
• 👶 Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development suggests that individuals progress through six stages of moral reasoning, from preconventional to postconventional morality.
• 🧩 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.
• 🔍 Psychologists study morality by examining how people make moral judgments and what motivates moral behaviors such as trust and cooperation.
• 💊 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.
• 🤝 Moral development is influenced by factors such as learning from parents, societal norms, and personal experiences as one ages.
• 🤔 Haidt's studies suggest that moral decisions are often driven by emotional, gut reactions rather than purely logical reasoning.
• 🚂 The trolley problem illustrates the complexity of moral judgments and how they can be influenced by our emotional responses to different scenarios.
• 👣 Empathy plays a significant role in moral decision-making, influencing how we respond to the needs and suffering of others.
• 🌐 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

00:00

🤔 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.

05:06

🔍 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.

10:11

🚂 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.

15:17

🌐 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.

Keywords

💡Morality

Morality refers to the principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. In the video, it is the central theme, with discussions ranging from its philosophical underpinnings to its psychological manifestations. It is exemplified in the script's exploration of moral dilemmas and the development of moral reasoning.

💡Moral Philosophy

Moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that explores ethical concepts and values. The video outlines its three main branches: meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics, each dealing with different aspects of moral inquiry, from the nature of morality itself to specific moral dilemmas and behaviors.

💡Meta-ethics

Meta-ethics is concerned with the meaning of moral language and the nature of moral properties. The script introduces it as the branch of moral philosophy that asks fundamental questions about the definition of morality and the existence of moral truths.

💡Normative Ethics

Normative ethics provides a framework for determining moral actions, prescribing how people ought to behave. The video script discusses this as the branch that attempts to answer questions about right and wrong conduct, offering guidance on moral decision-making.

💡Applied Ethics

Applied ethics involves the application of ethical theories to specific practical moral issues. The script mentions it as the branch focusing on concrete moral dilemmas and questions, such as whether it is acceptable to lie to help a friend.

💡Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg was a psychologist known for his theory of stages of moral development. The script describes his use of moral dilemmas, like the Heinz Dilemma, to understand how individuals reason about moral issues and the stages of moral growth he identified.

💡Preconventional Morality

Preconventional Morality, as described in Kohlberg's theory, is the first level of moral development where a child's moral decisions are primarily influenced by the consequences of actions and the expectations of adults. The script gives examples of how children at this stage view rules as absolute and obey them to avoid punishment.

💡Conventional Morality

Conventional Morality is the second level of Kohlberg's theory, where individuals begin to internalize the moral standards of their society. The script explains this as the stage where adolescents and adults focus on social expectations, norms, and maintaining social order.

💡Postconventional Morality

Postconventional Morality represents the final level of Kohlberg's moral development stages, where individuals understand morality in abstract terms and may prioritize universal ethical principles over societal rules. The script illustrates this with the example of the Heinz Dilemma, where a person at this stage might justify stealing the drug due to the unjust price charged by the druggist.

💡Empathy

Empathy is the capacity to understand and share the feelings of others. The script discusses its role in moral decision-making, suggesting that empathetic responses often drive moral judgments more than logical reasoning. It is highlighted in the context of moral dilemmas and the influence of emotional reactions on moral choices.

💡Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem is a hypothetical scenario used in ethics to illustrate the conflict between acting and not acting, and the moral implications of each. The script presents two versions of the problem to demonstrate how emotional responses can influence moral judgments, despite logical considerations of saving the most lives.

💡Prisoner's Dilemma

The Prisoner's Dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in the field of game theory that shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interest to do so. The script uses this game to explore the origins of moral behavior and the emotions associated with cooperation and betrayal.

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  

have to ask ourselves, what is right and what is  wrong? What is good and what is bad? While we may  

have some sense of how to go about answering these  questions, how do we know that we are correct? How  

do we even know that there are objective answers  to these questions? Philosophers have been  

wrestling with morality for a long time. There’s  actually a whole branch of philosophy called moral  

philosophy. Moral philosophy has three main  branches, each with its own specific set of  

questions. The first branch, known as meta-ethics,  asks big picture questions like: What is morality?  

What is justice? Is there truth? Another branch is  normative ethics. Normative ethics asks how should  

people behave, and tries to provide a framework  for deciding what is right and what is wrong.  

The last branch, applied ethics, focuses on  specific, practical moral questions. What  

do we need to do to be a good person? Is it  okay to lie, for example, to help a friend? 

Of course, this isn’t a philosophy lecture,  so we don’t need to answer these questions  

right now. We will approach morality from that  angle in a future philosophy series. Right now,  

we’re interested in the science behind morality.  Psychologists examine morality by asking things  

like, what do people think qualifies as morality?  What psychological processes are involved in  

making moral judgements? What motivates behaviors  linked to morality, like trust and cooperation? 

Some psychologists are particularly interested  in how morality develops. Do kids learn morality  

from their parents or from society? How does  morality change as a person ages? Psychologist  

Lawrence Kohlberg tested these ideas by  presenting a series of moral dilemmas to  

participants of varying ages, and asking them  to explain their reasoning. Here’s one example  

of a moral dilemma the participants might  hear, which is called the Heinz Dilemma. 

In this scenario, a woman was dying from cancer.  There was only one drug that the doctors thought  

would save her: a special form of radium that a  druggist in the same town had recently discovered.  

The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist  was charging ten times what the drug cost him  

to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and  charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug.  

The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went around town  and borrowed money to pay for the drug. Still,  

he could only get $1,000, or half of what the  druggist was charging. Heinz told the druggist  

that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it  for a lower price, or let him pay the full amount  

later. But the druggist said: “No, I discovered  the drug and I’m going to make money from it.” So  

Heinz got desperate, broke into the druggist’s  laboratory, and stole the drug for his wife. 

So, was this the right thing to do? Kohlberg  asked his participants if Heinz should have  

stolen the drug, as well as the reasoning  behind their decision. Kohlberg didn’t care  

if the participants thought Heinz was right  or wrong. Instead, he wanted to know why they  

made the moral decision they did. He used these  answers to create a theory of moral development. 

So how does morality develop? According to  Kohlberg’s theory, moral development can be  

broken down into three primary levels, each with  two stages. The first level is Preconventional  

Morality, which lasts until a person reaches  around nine years old. At this level,  

a child’s moral decisions are primarily shaped  by the expectations of adults and consequences  

for breaking the rules. What do the adults  in my life think I should do? A child in  

the first stage of Preconventional Morality  understands morality through obedience and  

punishment. Rules are fixed and absolute, and  they need to be obeyed to avoid punishment.  

When they reach stage two, children are  able to account for an individual’s point  

of view. In the Heinz dilemma, for instance,  children reasoned that the ‘right’ thing for  

Heinz to do was the thing that best served his  needs, so it was okay that he stole the drug. 

The next level of moral development is  Conventional Morality. This is the level  

where adolescents and adults are internalizing  the moral standards they’ve learned from others.  

They are able to accept authority and  the norms of the group they’re a part of.  

In stage three, people are focused on living up  to social expectations and roles. There is an  

emphasis on being a “good boy” or “good girl”,  being “nice,” and having the respect of others.  

Stage four is about maintaining social order.  People begin to consider society as a whole  

when making decisions and focus on maintaining  order by following rules and doing one’s duty. 

The final level in Kohlberg’s theory is  Postconventional Morality. This is when  

people start to understand morality in an abstract  manner. People begin at stage five to recognize  

that others may have differing values, opinions,  and beliefs. Rules are important to follow,  

but all the members of a society should work  together to agree on what the rules are.  

Finally, stage six is when people have  internalized universal ethical principles  

and abstract values like dignity, equality, and  justice. They will follow these principles even  

if they conflict with laws. So if we look at the  Heinz Dilemma, a person at stage six might say  

that Heinz was right to steal the drug. Heinz did  break a rule since stealing is against the law,  

but it was unjust for the druggist to charge  so much money for the drug and to let Heinz’s  

wife eventually die just because Heinz  couldn’t pay the full price immediately. 

Although it’s a decent theory, some have  criticized Kohlberg’s stages of moral development.  

For example, moral reasoning isn’t the same as  moral behavior. Just because we know what’s right  

doesn’t mean we’ll do what’s right. Kohlberg also  put a large emphasis on justice, and didn’t take  

into account other things that might drive moral  reasoning, like compassion and empathy. Still,  

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development played  a critical role in the emergence of moral  

psychology as a field. Today, researchers  continue to study how moral development  

emerges and how universal the stages really are.  Understanding these stages offers some insight  

into how children and adults make moral choices. Of course, the manner in which morality develops  

is not the only question in moral psychology.  Another question asks how we actually make our  

decisions. Psychologists like Jonathan  Haidt and Joshua Green suggest that our  

moral decisions are driven by emotional,  gut reactions instead of logical reasoning. 

Here’s a scenario drawn from one of Haidt’s  studies illustrating this idea. Quoting now  

from the study: “Julie and Mark are brother  and sister. They are traveling together in  

France on summer vacation from college. One  night, they are staying alone in a cabin  

near the beach. They decide that it would be  interesting and fun if they tried making love.  

At the very least, it would be a new experience  for each of them. Julie was already taking birth  

control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too,  just to be safe. They both enjoy making love,  

but they decide never to do it again. They keep  that night as a special secret, which makes them  

feel even closer to each other. What do you think  about that? Was it okay for them to make love?” 

Now, most people will say that it was not okay for  Julie and Mark to make love. But take a second and  

try to come up with a justification for this  conclusion. Why isn’t it okay? You might say,  

“there could be genetic defects from inbreeding.”  But they were using two forms of birth control  

correctly, so it’s extremely unlikely that  Julie will get pregnant. You could then say,  

“There could be emotional harm.” But they enjoyed  it and the act brought them closer together.  

One could then say, “It’s illegal.” Not in  France as long as they were consenting adults,  

which they were. Finally, one could resort  to, “It’s disgusting and wrong.” They didn’t  

find it disgusting. Are private acts  morally wrong if a lot of other people  

find them disgusting? They were both consenting  adults, using multiple forms of birth control,  

and there was no lasting harm after the act.  None of this is to condone incest of course,  

it is simply to demonstrate that we can  logically dismiss the most common moral  

objections to incest, yet most people still  find it to be morally wrong. This provides  

evidence for Haidt’s point: we judge first  and reason later. Moral reasoning is a way  

of justifying judgements we’ve already made  after an emotional gut response to a situation. 

Let’s look at the gut decisions behind moral  reasoning through a classic moral dilemma  

known as the trolley problem. Imagine there is an  out-of-control trolley hurtling down some tracks.  

Up ahead, the track splits into two different  paths. On the path the trolley is currently on,  

five people are tied to the tracks, and the  trolley is headed straight towards them.  

You are standing on the side of the tracks next to  a lever. If you pull the lever, the trolley will  

go down the other set of tracks. On this second  set of tracks, there is a single person standing.  

So what do you do? If you do nothing, the trolley  will continue down the original path and kill  

five people. If you pull the lever, the trolley  will switch tracks, saving the five people but  

killing the single person on this second set of  tracks. What is morally right in this scenario? 

Most people who are asked this question think  it’s morally right to pull the switch. After all,  

only one person would die instead of the original  five. You save more lives by throwing the switch.  

Now let’s change the scenario a little. A  trolley is still hurtling down some tracks,  

headed straight towards five people who are  tied up. But instead of being next to a switch,  

you are standing on a bridge above  the tracks next to a very large man.  

If you push the large man over the bridge,  he’ll fall on the tracks and will certainly  

stop the trolley from running over the five  people. What’s morally right in this scenario? 

Set up in this manner, most people view it  as morally wrong to push the man. Instead,  

they let the trolley kill the five people on  the track. But why? By not pushing the man,  

more people die. Aren’t five lives worth more than  one life? If we were to apply the same logic as  

in the previous example, we should conclude  that the moral decision is to push the man,  

since we will save more lives that way. But our  gut reaction tells us that pushing a single person  

to their death is worse than letting five people  get run over. Somehow the act of pushing the man  

seems different than pulling a lever, even though  both result in the death of someone who would not  

have died, had we not acted. Because our moral  judgements are often driven by these emotional  

reactions and not reasoned calculations, we tend  to make these less-than-ideal moral judgements. 

So what’s driving these emotional, gut reactions?  In many cases, our judgements and willingness  

to help others is the result of empathy, a  fundamental human emotion. Empathy is when we feel  

the feelings and experiences of another person  as if we were feeling it ourselves. Have you ever  

flinched or moved your own limb when watching a  movie where someone breaks their arm or leg? This  

is a form of empathy. The 18th century economist  Adam Smith described empathy as “When we see a  

stroke aimed, and just ready to fall upon the leg  or arm of another person, we naturally shrink and  

draw back our own leg or arm, and when it does  fall, we feel it in some measure, and are hurt by  

it as well as the sufferer.” Empathy also allows  us to experience both the happiness and misery of  

other people through perspective-taking. We can  put ourselves in the shoes of another and imagine  

what they are feeling. Starting at birth, human  infants will react with distress when they hear  

the cries of other infants. After they reach a  year old, they may also help others who are upset. 

But what is the connection between empathy  and morality? It turns out that empathy has  

direct consequences for how we respond to  moral dilemmas. Daniel Batson argues in his  

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis that when we’re  in a situation, we can either feel empathy  

or think logically about an individual in need.  Empathy in these scenarios leads people to care  

more and offer more help. Experimentally, how  people respond to the trolley problem and other  

hypothetical situations is predicted by their  empathy. For example, people who experience more  

instinctive empathy and unease at even pretending  to hurt others are much more likely to say that  

pushing the man in the trolley problem is morally  wrong. People who don’t have a lot of empathy  

for others are much more likely to exhibit  psychopathy and make more immoral decisions. 

Of course, having emotional, empathetic responses  don’t automatically make someone a good person.  

But it seems like they are necessary and  at the heart of our moral intuitions. Moral  

judgement and behavior seems to be driven  by basic emotional responses, and people who  

lack these emotional responses seem to have  very different moral judgments and actions. 

Morality gets even more interesting when we put  things into a societal context. Think about it, we  

don’t just care about our own beliefs and actions.  We care about what strangers believe and how they  

act. We also treat these moral views as serious  and objective. A disagreement about the best  

flavor of ice cream has a very different tone than  one about murder. But where does this society-wide  

sense of right and wrong come from? A lot of the  complexity of morality stems from how we interact  

with others. Remember the prisoner’s dilemma, the  trust and cooperation game we talked about earlier  

in the series? We can use people’s reactions  to decisions made in this game to explore where  

morality might come from. For example, we feel  gratitude and fondness for people who cooperate  

with us in the prisoner’s dilemma. This motivates  us to be nice to them in the future. In contrast,  

we feel anger and distrust toward those that  betray us. This motivates us to betray or avoid  

them in the future. We also feel guilt when  we betray someone who cooperates with us. This  

motivates us to behave better in the future. These  different feelings and emotions will shape how we  

respond to situations and what we view as moral. So the big question is of course, where does  

morality come from? Moral judgement and behavior  seems to be driven by both basic intuitions,  

like fairness and cooperation, and emotional  responses, like empathy and anger. But to fully  

account for the complexity of morality, we also  need to take into account our ability to reason,  

the power of social situations, and the role of  culture. Morality doesn’t appear in a vacuum.  

As we interact with others, we shape our moral  views and our own future moral behavior. What’s  

right and what’s wrong isn’t as black and  white as one might first assume. But we  

will have to put a pin in this discussion for  now, and move on to other topics in psychology.