L24 & L25 Flashcards
2 perspectives of morality
- evolutionist approach: development of a trait follows a progressing trajectory where later stages are more advanced
- relativist approach: development of a trait is based on local demands where the outcome is a cultural solution to a cultural problem
no stages or trajectory in relativist approach, thus no solution is better than the others
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
an evolutionist perspective
- most influential model of moral reasoning
- universal progression through 3 levels: preconventional, conventional, postconventional
cannot reach next level without passing the previous one
Level 1: preconventional
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
morality is a cost-benefit calculation of what provides the best overall return, considering one’s needs and whether one will be punished
e.g. “shouldn’t steal because Heinz will get in trouble”
Level 2: conventional
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
morality is following rules, maintaining and facilitating social order
e.g. “Heinz shouldn’t steal, instead he should uphold the law because the law is right”
Level 3: postconventional
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
morality is considering abstract, universal ethical principles that emphasize individual rights and freedoms
e.g. “Heinz should steal because allowing someone to die when it can be helped is unfair, regardless of what the law says”
Is there evidence for cross-cultural universality of postconventional thinking?
Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
- in meta-analysis, all urban societies have at least one adult engaging at postconventional level
- some tribal and indigenous societies show no postconventional level of thinking
Issue with Kohlberg’s stage theory of morality
too much focus on certain forms of moral reasoning assumes that some cultures are less evolved (e.g. tribal and indigenous societies) while others are at the top of the hierarchy
some cultures engage in different kinds of moral reasoning, which prompted the relativist approach
Shweder’s big three
a relativist perspective
there are 3 primary moral codes that different cultural groups emphasize: autonomy, community, divinity
- no one code is better than others
- different codes are more prevalent in different cultures
Code 1: autonomy
Shweder’s big three
- associated with concerns about harm, rights, and justice
- must protect freedoms of individuals as much as possible
- common in individualistic cultural groups
e.g. “Was someone harmed?” or “Did someone have their rights denied?”
Code 2: community
Shweder’s big three
- tied to an individual’s interpersonal obligations
- must protect social order by fulfilling one’s obligations to others
- common in collectivistic cultural groups
e.g. “Did someone show a lack of loyalty?” or “Did someone conform to traditions of society?”
Code 3: divinity
Shweder’s big three
- associated with concerns about sanctity and natural order
- must preserve standards mandated by transcendent authority
- common in collectivistic cultural groups
e.g. “Did someone do something disgusting?” or “Did someone act in a way that God would approve of?”
3 different scenarios used to study Shweder’s big three
How much money would you need to be convinced to…
1. stick a pin into the palm of a child you don’t know (autonomy)
2. marry someone against the wishes of your family (community)
3. act like an animal for a play, including crawling around naked and urinating (divinity)
3 ways to define fairness
Who deserves a resource?
- principle of need: resources are directed to those who need them the most
- principle of equality: resources are shared among all members of a group
- principle of equity: resources are distributed based on people’s individual contributions
Principle of equity in individualistic societies
fairness
- one’s input is proportional to their reward
- meant to increase motivation to work for a reward, which breeds competition
Principle of equality in collectivistic societies
fairness
- everyone gets the same raise but reward those with the longest tenure
- weakens link between individual input and reward, which decreases motivation to work hard
- promotes harmonious relationships by removing intragroup competition
Dictator game
most basic
a proposer asks a single player how much money they’re willing to split with another person to the extent they think is fair
cross-cultural variability (e.g. nearly 50/50 split in the US)
Ultimatum game
- proposer offers X amount of money
- receiver can either accept (everyone gets money) or reject the offer (no one gets money)
meant to be an improvement of the dictator game as it forces an individual to consider social/cultural norms of fairness
Economic theorists’ homo economicus
ultimatum game
- assumes that a hypothetical rational being should be willing to accept anything even if the offer is low
- but results find that: offers are generally between 40-50% and people are willing to accept no less than 30%
- kinship and reciprocity may encourage prosocial behavior
- humans are sensitive to fairness even in large, unrelated groups
Market integration
- the extent to which marketplace is ingrained into a culture
- measured as the percentage of purchased calories
- oftentimes involves conducting transactions with anonymous people, which requires trust, fairness, and cooperation
lower transaction costs increases long-term rewards
Evidence for cross-cultural variation in fairness norms
ultimatum game
- evidence from 23 small-scale human societies (e.g. foragers, horticulturalists, subsistence farmers)
- societies with more market integration are more likely to adopt a 50/50 fairness norm
Public goods game
best solution for individual vs. group
money in a common pot gets divided evenly among people
* best solution for individual is to not put anything into the pot and mooch off of what everyone else puts
* best solution for group is to put everything into the pot in every round
2 kinds of punishments in a public goods game
- altruistic: punish the people who don’t contribute enough (i.e. free-riders)
- antisocial: punish the people who contribute too much (i.e. those who are prosocial)
- evidence for all groups (cross-cultural) showing altruistic punishment, likely triggered by negative emotions from the violation of fairness norms
- antisocial punishment is negatively predicted by rule of law and civic cooperation (i.e. more common in places with less trust in the judicial system and no effective social fabric)
5 criteria for a moral foundation
new theory of moral values
- culturally widespread
- provides an adaptive advantage
- evidence of innate prepareness
- automatic affective evaluations
- a common concern in 3rd-party judgements
- innate preparedness: whether children have a natural sense that something is right or wrong
- automatic affective evaluations: a moral violence automatically triggers certain emotional responses
- 3rd-party judgements: believing that principles apply to other individuals even if oneself is not involved (a moral imperative)
5 moral foundations
moral foundation theory (expansion of Schweder’s big three)
- avoiding harm (harm)
- protecting fairness (fairness)
- loyalty to ingroup (loyalty)
- respect for hierarchy (hierarchy/authority)
- achieve purity (purity)
many of the same issues can be thought of in terms of different moral values (e.g. abortion, deportation, climate change)
Examples for each of the 5 moral foundations
- harm: maternal mammalian brains are sensitive to offspring suffering
- fairness: alliance formation led to emotions that motivate cooperation and prevent cheating
- loyalty: living in kin-based groups led to trusting ingroup and distrusting outgroup
- authority: hierarchically-structured ingroups shaped brains to navigate hierarchies
- purity: emotion of disgust developed to protect from disease transmission and pathogens
