Parallels of Moral Psychology and Intuition According to Haidt’s model, moral judgments are not products of slow and deliberate reasoning processes. Judgments are based on a connection of intuition, rationalization, and verbal justifications. In the article I read about modal and moral judgment a study was conducted to get to the bottom of how moral judgments are made. The study included 146 introductions to psychology undergraduate students that participated in a 32 question survey in exchange for extra credit. The student was asked a series of 32 timed, yes/no questions about moral permissibility and physical possibility. Each question had about 90-99 characters, all in which responses were recorded. The questions answered were the same, …show more content…
When they used out of the ordinary events to produce modal judgments and out of the ordinary actions to produce moral judgments, they found that the more often that participants judged the extraordinary events as possible. The responses of the participants judgments were recorded and their disgust sensitivity. The more they judged the actions as permissible, irrespective of their disgust sensitivity. The study to me has given clarity to the close relationship of a person given moral judgment to behaviors and actions that they deem acceptable and it solely can be based on the personal beliefs. For an individual to accept actions as being permissible when they are not such, it would require a level of open-mindedness as well as different cognitive perception. The observation that modal judgment and moral judgment share similar demands, it suggests that these two forms of judgment should track one another more closely than either should track a conceptually distinct ability or disposition. Generating judgments that typically went against the participants normal judgment pattern thus appeared to take more cognitive effort, regardless of whether that pattern was to judge items as predominantly possible/permissible or to judge them as predominantly …show more content…
The ideas are the two are not just empirical but are intertwined further into cognition. The study notes that explicit reasoning plays a part in situations as well, because people who act on immediate intuition appear to have a more solid set of principled beliefs and commitments. The conclusion of these assertions cannot be based on thinking, but is against a set of principles that already exist. The claim of things that are physically possible, such as “can it rain?” must be measured against the idea that it has already happened before or preexisting conditions such as a cloudy sky. Philosophers have long noted logical relations between alethic modality, or the domain of possibility and necessity, and deontic modality, or the domain of permissibility and obligation (see Hughes & Cresswell, 1968) but the psychological relations among these domains have not been well studied. I found this to be rather interesting because those same individuals who were college students that answered the physically possible questions in a manner opposite of their own behaviours seemed to me to be a bit ironic. The conclusion of the study was based on both theoretical and empirical reasoning in the comparison of moral judgment and modal judgment. Across the domains both had shared
Though individuals live by and react similarly to various situations, not all people have the same morals. I can relate to instances where I have supported a belief, regardless of the criticisms that arise, all because my choice is based upon personal morals. The same can be said regarding Debra J. Dickerson as she expresses in her novel, An American Story. In Carol Gilligan’s “Concepts of Self and Morality,” she states, “The moral person is one who helps others; goodness in service, meeting one’s obligations and responsibilities to others, if possible without sacrificing oneself” (170). After considering this statement, I strongly feel that Gilligan’s proposal lacks the depth to accurately characterize the moral person, but I am able to accept the argument raised by Joan Didion. Her essay entitled, “On Morality,” clearly provides a more compelling and acceptable statement in describing the moral person by saying, “I followed my own conscience, I did what I thought was right” (181). Joan Didion’s proposal is precise and acceptable. It is obvious that as long as people follow what they believe is the right thing to do, and approach the situation maturely, their actions can be considered examples of morality, and they can then be considered moral human beings.
There has been a huge debate throughout the years of whether humans are ethical by nature or not. Despite Christian Keyser’s research evidence that humans are ethical by nature, the evidence from the Milgram experiment shows that we are not ethical by nature. Humans learn to be ethical through genetic disposition as well as environmental factors such as culture, socialization, and parenting. In order to understand if we are ethical or not, we need to understand the difference between being moral or ethical. Many people believe that being moral and ethical are the same thing, but these two terms are a bit different. “Morality is primarily about making correct choices, while ethics is about proper reasoning” (Philosopher, web). Morality is more
Morality is not something that should be easy to comprehend, and philosophers such as Mackie and McDowell are taking the wrong approach when trying to describe morality in natural terms. People need to understand that morality is something supernatural that we don’t have the capacity to comprehend. However, this does not mean that all moral judgments are false. There is a right choice in every scenario, however the variety of scenarios in this world is so grand that one cannot judge it by one code of
On his many adventures, Huckleberry Finn encounters numerous situations in which his morality is tested or needs to be implemented. Huck has moral dilemmas to a degree, but he figures out the answer to his questions. He also figures out that sometimes, society has it all wrong, and that at times you just have to follow your heart. In The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, Twain reveals that what is honorable is to follow your natural moral instincts, not what society and civilization say is moral.
The two competing theoretical frameworks that attempt to explain the development of morality are cognitive-behavioral and cognitive-developmental. The cognitive-behavioral approach is taken by Liebert, and the cognitive-developmental approach is taken by Kohlberg.
(Jensen, 2005, p. 69) could be compared with the importance of desired moral reasoning. The
1. Conflicting views improve one’s moral reasoning, critical thinking, and mental dexterity, but difficult to accept because of their context and one’s cognitive dissonance (Dalton, Week 5).
Scarf, D., Imuta, K., Colombo, M., Hayne, H. (2012) Social evaluation or simple association? Simple association may explain moral reasoning in infants. PLoS ONE 7(8) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042698
The theory of Cognitive Dissonance states that when individuals are presented with information that implies we act in a way that contradicts our moral standards, we experience discomfort (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, 1998, P. 191). This is considered Cognitive Dissonance,
James Rachels expresses his thoughts on what a satisfactory moral theory would be like. Rachels says a “satisfactory theory would be realistic about where human beings fit in the grand scheme of things” (Rachels, 173). Even though there is an existing theory on how humans came into this world there is not enough evidence to prove the theory to be correct. In addition to his belief of knowing how our existence came into play, he also has a view on the way we treat people and the consequences of our actions. My idea of a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best plan.
Ethics are influence from many demographics which include family influences, peer influences, past experiences, religion, and situations. People decide whether something is ethical and whether or not it is right or wrong based on these influences. Individuals decide whether something is ethical or unethical based on family influences because people absorb about the ethical status or something family members based on how our families act. Also individuals also conduct their decisions based on peer influences because classmates and friends that surround us, usually impact a person’s believes on what is right or wrong overtime. Furthermore, people also resolve to their decisions on whether something is right or wrong established on past experiences because they predict their benefits on demographics that had happened to them in the past. Additionally, people select some decisions based on religion because a person’s religious beliefs will usually inspire he or she on what is right or wrong. Finally, another way people base their ethical decisions is based on the situations they are in because people sometimes change their beliefs depending on the circumstances they are in.
I argue that persons are unlikely to have moral knowledge insofar as they lack certain moral virtues; that persons are commonly deficient in these virtues, and hence that they are regularly unlikely to have adequate moral knowledge. I propose a version of this argument that employs a broad conception of self-worth, a virtue found in a wide range of moral traditions that suppose a person would have an appropriate sense of self-worth in the face of tendencies both to overestimate and underestimate the value of one’s self. I begin by noting some distinctive features of this argument that distinguish it from more common arguments for moral skepticism. This is followed by an elucidation of the virtue of self-worth. I then consider some connections between self-worth and moral knowledge and, more briefly, the extent of self-worth among persons. Finally, I respond to the objection that the argument is incoherent because it presupposes moral knowledge that it later undermines.
Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we feel is necessary.
In today’s society, moral actions are based on emotions, feelings, and our own personal decisions that better ourselves. Moral realism states that we do indeed have moral facts that exist and pertain to everyone, without ties to feelings. I will talk about basic ideas of moral realism as well as those who contradict realism. I will hit on Alfred Ayer’s emotivism ideas as well as J. L. Mackie’s ideas of skepticism that also contradict moral realism, finally backing up Mackie’s ideas as to why they are the most convincing.
As human beings, our natural instinct causes us to impulsively respond to emotional situations and triggers behavior that becomes learned, a reaction chemically part of us that is deeply rooted in our brains and bodies. The learned behavior and resulting outcome have the ability motivate future behavior. However, the decision and fulfillment of such action relies heavily on self-determination, a product of our nurturing that gives us moral accountability when making tough or emotional choices. As we grow and mature, moral precedents are set when our natural instincts, emotional reactions, and conscious decisions intersect, however, a constant internal battle exists, as we fight back and forth between our instincts, free-will, and moral responsibilities. What we make of this is what arises as our distinct morality.