Problem 7: Moral Judgment Flashcards
Emotion
leads us to make fast relatively “automatic” decisions
Cognition
(reason)
produces slower, more considered decisions
Dual-process model of decisions made with moral dilemmas (Greene)
- a fast, automatic, and affective system
–> intuitive
–> emotion generation/ emotional processing
–> ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) - a slower, effortful, and more “cognitive” system
–> deliberate
–> cognitive control/controlled processing
–> dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC)
–> assumption that utilitarian responding to moral dilemmas requires deliberate correction of an intuitive deontological response
deontological judgments
judgments based on moral rules and/or obligations when resolving moral dilemmas
–> the morality of an action depends on the intrinsic nature of the action
–> harming someone is considered wrong regardless of its potential benefits
–> use System 1
utilitarian judgments
judgments based on practical and pragmatic considerations when resolving moral dilemmas
–> the morality of an action is determined by its consequences
–> one performs a cost-benefit analysis and chooses the greater good
–> use System 2
Counter evidence of the Dual-Process Model
–> the utilitarian response is given in the initial phase of a moral judgment
–> utilitarian responders do not necessarily need to deliberate to correct an initial deontological response
–> utilitarian intuitions are not a curiosity that results from extreme or trivial scenario content but lies at the very core of the moral reasoning process
personal moral dilemma
we might directly harm one or more individuals through our actions
–> footbridge dilemma
impersonal moral dilemma
any harm is only indirectly due to our actions
–> trolley dilemma
CNI model (Grawonski)
C = Consequences
N = Moral Norms
I = Preference for Inaction
in moral dilemmas, utilitarian judgments could actually be a lack of aversion to harming others and deontological judgments could be a general preference for inaction regardless of moral norms
moral judgment stories
stories designed to trigger moral intuitions of condemnation, actions in them are disgusting or disrespectful, but completely harmless
WEIRD society morality
a morality that protects those individuals and their individual rights
–> emphasizes concerns about harm and fairness
non-WEIRD society morality
sociocentric morality –> you place the needs of groups and institutions first, often ahead of the needs of individuals
The ethic of autonomy
based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, autonomous individuals with wants, needs, and preferences
–> concepts in a society: rights, liberty, and justice
–> dominant in individualistic societies
The ethic of community
based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, members of larger entities such as families, teams, armies, companies, tribes, and nations
–> concepts in a society: duty, hierarchy, respect, reputation, and patriotism
The ethic of divinity
based on the idea that people are, first and foremost, temporary vessels within which a divine soul has been implanted
–> concepts in a society: sanctity and sin purity and pollution, elevation and degradation
Topography of purity
The human mind perceives a vertical dimension of social space, running from God or moral perfection at the top down through angels, humans, other animals, monsters, demons, and then the devil, or perfect evil, at the bottom
high = good = pure = God
low = bad = dirty = animal
moral disgust
is felt whenever we see or hear about people whose behavior shows them to be low in the vertical dimension
Matrix
Each matrix provides a complete, unified, and emotionally compelling worldview, easily justified by observable evidence and nearly impregnable to attack by arguments from outsiders
Enlightenment –> exploring new matrices, each one supported by its own intellectual traditions can feel like a kind of awakening
Potential concerns that are not activated during childhood are left undeveloped and unconnected to the web of shared meanings and values that become our adult moral matrix
moral identity
captures whether the moral self-schema is central to an individual’s self-definition
situational cues (e.g., seeing an American flag) have the power to momentarily influence social information processing by activating or deactivating certain knowledge structures (e.g., one’s national identity), or schemas, in an individual’s working self-concept
internalization
private aspect –> captures chronic accessibility of the self-schema thus indicating the chronic subjective experience of having a moral identity
symbolization
public aspect –> captures importance a person places on exhibiting a public moral self as a way of affirming one’s morality (partly driven by impression management, self-verification motives)
prescriptive moral regulation
good deeds –> e.g., charitable giving, helping behaviors
high internalizers feel a strong sense of obligation to show moral concern about socially distant others
internalization primacy principle (IPP)
–> internalization is more important than symbolization when it comes to the impact of moral cues
proscriptive moral regulation
cheating, interpersonal mistreatment, retaliatory behaviors
high symbolizers are resistant to the influence of processing frames when evaluating unfair acts toward others; also magnify retaliatory and punitive reactions to mistreatment by others
Strong effect on high internalizers —> justify the engagement in unethical acts; greater resources to restrain selfish/unethical desires
internalization-symbolization equality principle (ISEP)
–> internalization and symbolization both shape how individuals react to cues in their environment
Social Intuitionist Model (Haidt)
= A set of causal links connecting 3 psychological process types –> intuition, judgment, and reasoning
Intuitive judgment link –> one’s judgments are driven primarily by the situation
Post-hoc reasoning link –> one’s reasoning is driven primarily by judgment, rather than the other way
Reasoned judgment link –> allows one’s reasoning to directly influence judgment
Private reflection link –> allows one’s reasoning to influence judgment by modifying intuitions
Reasoned persuasion link –> A’s reasoning influences B’s judgment by influencing B’s intuition
Social persuasion link –> A’s judgment, in the absence of explicit attempts at reasoning, influences B’s judgment by modifying B’s intuition
Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt)
= there are 5 moral foundations on which systems of morality are built
3 Binding Foundations (= group-oriented view of morality):
1. loyalty/betrayal
2. authority/subversion
3. purity/degradation
2 individualizing foundations (= focus on the provision and protection of individual rights):
1. care/harm
2. fairness/cheating
Theory of Moral Judgment (Kohlberg)
Preconventional moral reasoning (= self-centered)
–> morality is determined by authority and punishments
Conventional moral reasoning (= centered on social relationships)
–> morality is determined by rules in the situation and needs and reciprocity
Postconventional moral reasoning (= centered on ideals/moral principle –> abstract thinking)
–> morality is based on universal moral rules
Stress influencing moral reasoning
more stress = less likely to make a util choice
females show significantly less util responses than men when exposed to stress factors
stress response is significantly negatively correlated with util responses
Eastern Culture moral judgment
Confucianism –> personal ethics and morality
justice and fairness viewed as a matter of equality
describe uncivilized behaviors as ‘immoral’
Western Culture moral judgment
deontological ethics
harmful = immoral
justice and fairness are viewed as matters of equality
Empathy influencing moral reasoning
can interfere with moral decision-making through group biases
Emotional Component
–> generates motivation to care and help others
Motivational Component
–> integral for maintaining social relationships
Cognitive Component
–> strategy for reducing group biases
