Post on 14-Dec-2015
Philosophical Study of Ethics
• Right vs. wrong• Good vs. evil• What you should
do?• How should we
make moral decisions?
• Egoism• Relativism• Justice
Philosophical analyses: • Deontology• Teleology
Normative ethics
Psychological Study of Ethics
• Individual differences• Cross-cultural variations• Values, virtues,
character
Scientific analyses: • Moral judgment• Moral development
Descriptive ethics
• How do people decide what is right vs. wrong?
• When (and why) do people act in ways that are morally questionable?
• Overview of one approach to individual differences in judgments about ethics
• Review, briefly, empirical findings, focusing on moral judgments
• Report of a preliminary study of relationship between moral thought and political orientation
“Reasonable people disagree…”
Individual Differences in Morality
• Should Heinz steal the drug?• Should you push the switch to divert the
trolley? • Should psychologists help develop “interview”
methods for the military?• Is a lie, told for a “right purpose” (say, by a
researcher) morally permissible?• Should social psychologists fake their data? • Are we morally obligated to care for others?
Answers Depend on your Individual Moral Philosophy
Moral Philosophies
Moral Position (or philosophy): • an individual’s organized set of
beliefs and values pertaining to ethics
• individuals are intuitive “moral philosophers”
Example: From the great philosopher, Calvin
Great variation, but 2 themes
1.Principle-based morality: Aren’t there rules about what’s right and wrong?
• Moral standards (e.g., lying, stealing)
• General principles (e.g., Golden Rule, Kant’s categorical imperative)
• Codes of ethics (e.g., Hippocratic Oath; Geneva Convention).
Second theme
2. Consequence-based morality: Shouldn’t we try to maximize happiness and minimize harm?
• Beneficence (doing good works that help others)
• Utilitarianism (e.g., Bentham’s greatest good for the greatest number )
• Primum non nocere (“first, do no harm”)
First Theme: Principles
• Tolerate differences • Don’t expect others
to act as you do• Rules, and
morality, change over time
• No rule is sacred
Universalism
• Follow the rules
• Stick to your principles
• Do what is right
• Don’t do what is wrong
Relativism
Second Theme: Consequences
• Trade-offs are unavoidable
• Weigh the good against the bad
• Calculate cost-benefit ratio and choose rationally
Idealism
• Do no harm• Promote others’
welfare• Do not weigh
ends against the means
Consequentialism
The Ethics Position Questionnaire
Measuring Relativism
1. Different types of moralities cannot be compared as to rightness.
2. What is ethical varies from one situation and society to another.
3. Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral depends upon the circumstances surrounding the action.
The
se 2
them
es, o
r di
men
sion
s, e
mer
ged
acro
ss a
num
ber
of
stud
ies
of in
divi
dual
dif
fere
nces
in m
oral
judg
men
t
The Ethics Position Questionnaire
Measuring Idealism 4. One should never psychologically or physically
harm another person.5. If an action could harm an innocent other, then it
should not be done.6. Deciding whether or not to perform an act by
balancing the positive consequences of the act against the negative consequences of the act is immoral.
The
ful
l que
stio
n ha
s 20
que
stio
ns, r
athe
r th
an ju
st th
ese
6
Relativism
Relativism: Some personal moral codes emphasize the importance of universal ethical rules; others do not endorse universal principles
Low Relativism
High Relativism
3 159.3
Idealism
Idealism: a fundamental concern for the welfare of others; some assume that we should avoid harming others, others assume harm will sometimes be necessary to produce good.
Low Idealism
High Idealism
3 1510.5
Dimensions vs. Types
• People vary from low to high in idealism and relativism
• Can also “type” people, as relatively high versus low
• If consider both dimensions, typing yields a four-fold classification
LowIdealism
HighIdealism
HighRelativism
LowRelativism
Situationist
AbsolutistExceptionist
Subjectivist
Four Ethical Ideologies
Subjectivist Situationist
Exceptionist Absolutist
Idealism
Rela
tivis
m
Low
High
High
Appraisals based on personal values and perspective rather
than universal principles
Rejects moral rules; advocates
individualistic analysis of each act in each
situation
Moral absolutes guide judgments but
pragmatically open to exceptions to these standards; utilitarian
Assumes that the best possible outcome can always be achieved
by following universal moral rules
Do people with different moral philosophies “think about” morality differently?
Studies of the “Moral mind”
1. People differ in their conclusions about morality: their moral judgments.
• Absolutists harshest if principle violated
• Situationists sensitive to harm• Subjectivists unpredictable• Exceptionists lenient if justification
Example: Judgments of Research Procedures
Borin
g Ta
sk
Prison
Stu
dy
Bogu
s Fe
edba
ck
Subw
ay
Relig
ious
Bel
iefs
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SituationistsSubjectivistsExceptionistsAbsolutists
How
Un
eth
ical
2. People may differ in how they make their moral judgments
• Some evidence suggests situationists process information in a more complex way than others (multiplicative combinatorial model rather than additive).
• Absolutists, if “cognitively busy,” process information more slowly
3. People may differ in how they behave in morally charged settings. • Some evidence
suggests judgments influence actions
• BUT: Moral words do not necessarily = moral deeds
4. But absolutists certainly feel worse after acting immorally….
Exce
ptio
nist
s
Subj
ectiv
ists
Situ
atio
nist
s
Abso
lutis
ts0
1
2
3
4
5
Self-
rati
ngs
5. Ethics positions across cultures
Using meta-analysis, we (Forsyth, O’Boyle, & McDaniel, 2008) explored average EPQ scores across various countries. Identified 139 samples of over 30,000 individuals.
Forsyth & O’Boyle (2013) found a relationship between a country’s ethics position and average levels of “happiness”.
Absolutist Situationist Subjectivist Exceptionist0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Lev
el o
f H
app
ines
s
How about politics?
Are the differences between conservative and liberal views rooted in moral differences?
Jon Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory
Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity
Kindness
Fairness
Self-sacrifice
Respect
Reverence
Moral debates in contemporary society
Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity
Conservatives
Conservatives and most traditional societies (esp. agricultural) build on all five foundations, create a broad morality. Regulates most action; values tradition.
Conservatives and most traditional societies (esp. agricultural) build on all five foundations, create a broad morality. Regulates most action; values tradition.
Moral debates in contemporary society
Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity
Liberals
Liberals and more mobile, mercantile societies hyper-value harm and reciprocity; distrust and overrule hierarchy, purity, and sometimes in-group. Create a narrow morality, values autonomy, rights, and self-expression.
Liberals and more mobile, mercantile societies hyper-value harm and reciprocity; distrust and overrule hierarchy, purity, and sometimes in-group. Create a narrow morality, values autonomy, rights, and self-expression.
Example: Health Care Reform
Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity
CompassionEqual rights
UnfairOutsidersServed Profession
Harmed Unhealthy
Example: Marriage Rights for Gays
Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity
CompassionEqual rights Heterosexism Against God
+ tradition Sin, perversion
Source: Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
Haidt and his colleagues find some suggestive evidence of two clusters—is one of these idealism, the other relativism?
Internet-based survey completed the EPQ and the MFQ
9128 participants (fewer for the political attitudes measures)
130 countries
a bit “liberal” of a sample
Implications and Future Directions
In SumPersonal MoralPhilosophies
Relativism
Universalism
Idealism
Consequentialism