Morality - Universiteit Utrecht

Lecture 4  

Morality: right and wrong. How do we know what is right/wrong? 

Trolley problem 1 

• There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks.  Ahead there are 5 people tied to the tracks.  You are standing near a level that will switch the trolley to a different track where 1 person is tied. 

• Should you pull the lever to divert the runaway trolley onto the sidetrack? 

• Clash between utilitarianism – (actions that maximize happiness and well-being) and deontological ethics – the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of that action…  

• 2 options: do nothing and allow the trolley to kill 5 people, or pull the lever divert the train and kill one? 

Trolley problem 2 

• A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it.  There is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? 

• Most people: do nothing, don't push an innocent person. 

• This solution is essentially an application of the doctrine of double effect, which says that you may take action which has bad side effects, but deliberately intending harm (even for good causes) is wrong. 

• Different rationale for making the same decision.  

Trolley problem 

• A moral dilemma is a conflict in which you have to choose between two or more actions and have moral reasons for choosing each action. 

• Trolley problem 1: 

• Utilitarianism (greatest good; 1 person dead is better) vs. Deontological ethics (moral action regardless of consequence; putting the lever gets you involved in a situation > you become in a criminal act) 

• Trolley problem 2: 

• Utilitarianism: push the person 

• Deontological: you don't push the person. Don't get involved. 

Nature-nurture debate on moral development 

• Biological/evolutionary viewpoint 

• Developmental process of maturation. Morality rises because of this maturation.  

• Nature of the human being is ‘good’. Something built into us: we recognize who is helpful or not > nature of human is good. 

• Cultural viewpoint 

• Developmental process of interiorization/internalization 

• Nature of the human being is ‘bad’ 

• Teach people to have certain values (not built into us). Teach the child to move the original sin. 

• Interactionist viewpoint 

• Nature of the human being is morally neutral, neither good nor bad. It depends on what happens and how they interact and mature biologically.  

The cultural versus the cognitive developmental approach 

• The cultural approach and cognitive developmental approach are based on different assumptions about moral development. 

• Cultural approach: focus is on beliefs 

• Relativistic: all cultural beliefs are equally valid (human rights are a western invention) 

• Development is adaptation (context-specific) 

• Development is ‘caused’ by transmission of the older to the younger generation 

• No progression, no creativity, only copying (narrow) 

• Development is gradual 

• Cognitive developmental approach: focus is on cognitions 

• Universalistic (human rights are and should be universal) 

• Development is progressive: more mature is better 

• Development is ‘caused’ by the interaction: biological pre-dispositions and environment 

• Human creativity in individual cognitive development and in the history of human thinking 

• Development is stepwise. Possibility for cultural revolution of values 

Limitations of the cultural approach 

• Cultural approach cannot explain: 

• Moral (r)evolution 

• e.g., the abolition of slavery 

• The higher importance of parental ‘induction’ and ‘warmth’ for moral development than ‘modelling’ or ‘reward and punishment'.  

• Parents getting kids to think about how others feel when you take their toys 

• Warmth and induction has a stronger effect on moral development than just modelling or reward and punishment 

• Why do we care when human rights are trampled in far-away countries like North-Korea? 

• More generally: our society is changing very fast and transmission of values (from one generation to the next) is a too inflexible and slow process.  

• Instead of transmission: make decisions on your own 

Moral development in adolescence seems crucial for self-regulation 

• Adolescence is a crucial period for moral development: 

• Increase of behavioral options 

• Decrease of adult supervision 

• Shift in relationship orientation from parents to peers (I.e., peer pressure as risk factor) 

• Increase of self-determination 

• Moral development is viewed as 

• From immature to mature moral judgement 

• Development of a moral identity 

What do we mean by moral development? 

• Moral development is: 

• Development in moral judgement or moral reasoning 

• To reason about just or honest solutions in moral dilemmas 

• Morality (refers to harm-based actions: justice, well-being) 

• What is moral judgement competence? 

• The capacity to make reflective decisions which are moral 

• Competence is measured in situations that elicit the highest stage of moral reasoning persons are capable of 

Introduction cognitive developmental approach to morality 

• Cognitive developmental theories assume that when a child is born, it is a morally neutral, but egocentric being (Piaget, 1932).  

• Through a process of social perspective-taking (decentering) morally relevant ‘capacities’ develop: 

• Moral judgment 

• Empathy (cognitive/affective) 

• Moral domain distinction 

• Moral identity 

• These capacities regulate behavior and have been related to anti- and prosocial behavior 

Kohlberg: 3 levels, 5 (6) stages of moral judgment (justice reasoning) 

• Pre-conventional level (morality is externally controlled) 

• Stage 1: punishment and obedience “obedience for its own sake” 

• Stage 2: individualism, instrumental goals, concrete reciprocity (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours) 

• Conventional level 

• Stage 3: reciprocal expectations and interpersonal conformity; ideal reciprocity (golden rule fulfilling role obligations, trust, loyalty) 

• Stage 4: social system and conscience (wider rules of society, obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt) 

• Post-conventional level 

• Stage 5: social contract and individual rights “the greatest good for the greatest number” – exceptions (life is more important than breaking the law and stealing) 

• Stage 6: universal ethical principles (human rights, justice, equality – defended against the majority) 

• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.   

• The issues are not always clear cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing. 

• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone. 

• E.g. human rights, justice and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage. 

Measures to assess development in moral judgement (reasoning) 

• Production measures (interviews: asking for explanations of decisions): 

• Moral Judgment Interview (Kohlberg): all 5 or 6 stages 

• Sociomoral Reflection Measure-SF (Gibbs et al.): 4 stages (immature/mature) 11 items justify the importance of: contract, truth, affiliation, life, life law 

• Recognition measures (questionnaires): 

• DIT (Rest): conventional/postconventional 

• SROM-SF/O: immature/mature 

• Moral Judgment Test: stage consistency 

• Recognition measures are needed for large scale research (production measures are expensive) 

Gender differences in moral judgement? 

• Kohlberg & Kramer (1969): men > women  

• Gilligan: gender-specific moral orientations:  

• females: care (cf. empathy);  

• males: justice 

• Recent research:  

• Hypothetical dilemmas 

• No sex differences (Walker; Thomas).  

• Exception, early adolescents (Gibbs): females > males  

• Everyday moral dilemmas  

• Males more justice oriented  

• females more care oriented dilemmas.  

• "Contrary to Gilligan's claim, Kohlberg's theory does not underestimate the moral maturity of females. Instead, justice and caring coexist but vary in prominence between males and females, from one situation to the next, and across cultures." 

Conditions in everyday life that stimulate moral judgement development 

• Cognitive growth and moral cognitive conflict  

• Role-taking opportunities 

• Participation in decisions 

• Moral climate at home, in school, peer group (parental style; leadership) 

• Programs for stimulating moral judgment in antisocial youth, like e.g. EQUIP, Aggression Replacement Training (ART) 

• Programs for stimulating moral leadership 

Universality 

• Universality in moral judgement development has been found up to stage 4 

• Stages 1 to 4 are sequentially ordered; stages cannot be skipped 

• Stage 5 is found in a low percentage in western countries 

• Stage 5 demands that one can mentally step out a traditional framework. Most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves. 

• Some cognitive developmentalists have limited the number of stages to 4 

• Is the claim for universality of stage 5 justified? If not, does it mean that all moralities are equally valid? 

• Is it possible to criticize cruel traditional practices without a stage 5 perspective? 

Primacy of affect or cognition? 

• Kohlberg's model: primacy of moral reasoning 

• Significance of cognition in moral functioning 

• The creation of meaning 

• The determination of truth 

• People at a certain stage begin to refer to feelings of guilt and shame in their reasoning. 

• The way we think about moral actions is also related to our emotions 

Some criticisms on Kohlberg's theory 

• Moral emotions are viewed by Kohlberg as secondary and function remains unclear 

• Kohlberg's theory is strongly focused on moral judgment competence instead of everyday moral reasoning and functioning (cold cognitions) 

• Does moral behavior demand moral reasons in everyday life? 

• Speed of moral judgement versus slow moral reasoning process may suggest the existence of moral intuitions: people know immediately what's OK and what's not OK, without knowing why it is (not) OK (gut feeling) 

Haidt's theses 

• Emotions (revulsion, disgust, sympathy) drive evaluation of good or bad. 

• No intentionality. 

• Moral intuitions are built-in (evolutionary adaptations) and given cultural expression (hence they are culturally relative). 

• Moral reasoning is of secondary importance.  

• Individual freedom is a fiction. Humans do not have the power of moral choice/cannot plan a life in accord with one’s evaluation of ends. 

The rationalist of Kohlberg 

• See slide for model 

• Situation goes through our thought process > judgment > behavior 

The social-intuitionist model of Haidt 

• Situation > intuition > bad/good > judgement > reason/explanation for it 

• Moral reasoning more likely to be an interpersonal process. More social morals than abstract principles. 

Does moral judgement affect behavior? 

• In order to do what is right one must first know what is right 

• The same moral decisions can be based on different stage-typed reasons 

• The same stage of moral reasoning can lead to different decisions 

• How one think one should (ought to) act and how one really acts (judgment-action gap) 

Meta-analyses 

• Strongest differences: measures of moral reasoning. Delinquent youth lower levels moral reasoning.  

• Cognitive empathy: ability to understand another's emotions and feelings 

• Affective empathy: ability to share another's emotional state and to experience feelings of the other person 

• Differences are greatest in terms of moral reasoning 

How to interpret the relationship between moral judgement and antisocial behavior? 

• Is a low moral judgment antecedent to antisocial behavior? 

• e.g., because of poor educational opportunities at home a delay in moral development is found) 

• Does antisocial behavior lead to a low moral judgment? 

• e.g., because of a low moral atmosphere in prison a regression in moral development is found 

• Findings from longitudinal studies in normal adolescents suggest that the relation is bi-directional 

• Is the relationship between moral judgement and antisocial behavior direct or indirect? 

• The nature of the relation is unclear. Krebs and Wark found 11 mediators or moderators 

• Example: self-serving cognitive distortions 

• Beliefs (defense mechanisms) to maintain a “good image” 

• Sociomoral developmental delay may not lead to severe or criminal antisocial behavior, unless certain defensive processes come into play 

Self-serving cognitive distortions 

• Inaccurate or biased ways of attending to or conferring meaning upon experiences (i.e., cognitive distortions are beliefs).   

• Self-serving cognitive distortions are related to antisocial behavior. 

• Function: to reduce or preempt cognitive dissonance (i.e., to neutralize potential empathy; guilt) and to protect self-esteem.  

• Assumption:  

• delinquents are committed to the conventional values system.  

• self-serving cognitive distortions have the function to protect self-esteem. 

• You didn't do it because you are a bad person, but because all those reasons 

Delinquents are much more likely to use self-serving cognitive distortions 

Importance: examples of criminogenic factors: the focus of intervention/prevention programs 

• Dynamic, individual factors: cognitive, affective, behavioral factors can be an important target 

Educational programs to stimulate moral development: peer intervention programs 

• EQUIP / Aggression Replacement Training (ART):  

• Youth with externalizing behavioral problems are part of a negative group culture and have specific deficits in social skills, moral development, and social information processing (Gibbs, 2003).  

• Goal: to learn to behave responsibly and to help each other to reduce deficits.  

• Positive peer group + skills training 

• Long term goal: reduction of antisocial behavior / recidivism. 

• EQUIP decreases SSCD, particularly self-centeredness, in delinquent adolescents 

• Problem: the best effect in terms of moral reasoning and recidivism in US. Unfortunately the program has not been successful in lowering recidivism in other countries. 

Do adolescents care about being a moral person? 

• Self as a complex construct with several components: 

• Moral identity 

• Sense of responsibility 

• Self-consistency 

• Moral identity refers to the degree in which moral virtues (values, traits) are central to the self 

• Moral reasoning affects behavior when moral values are important to the self and when one feels responsible for the situation (motivation) 

• Moral identity reflects the merging of identity development and moral development 

Three ways to measure moral identity 

Example 

• Rate of moral traits. Important or not important? 

• Top 10 traits that receive the highest ratings, 8 out of 10 were moral traits. 

Moral identity internalization 

• Respondents were presented a list of 9 moral character traits and were asked to picture a person with those traits while responding to five statements on a scale from 1 to 7 

• Higher scores equal higher moral identity internalization 

Moral ideal self 

• Participants were presented 50 traits 

• Rate each trait, according to how much it describes the type of person they really want to be 

• The moral ideal self has the strongest correlations with behavior. So the higher adolescents rated themselves with the more ideal self, the more altruistic they were and the less aggression they reported. 

• Study 2: sense of purpose + sense of social responsibility > significant positively related. Purpose related with all factors; sense of social responsibility related with 3 factors 

Conclusions 

• Moral identity links to moral behavior in all youth 

• Moral cognition is a useful tool for understanding prosocial and antisocial behavior