Moral Development Theories

Moral Development Theories

Learning Goals

• Define and Compare: Different approaches to defining morality.

• Analyze: Diverse theoretical perspectives on adult moral reasoning.

• Explain and Evaluate: Foundational theories of moral development.

Understanding Morality

• Definition: Morality is a complex concept often linked with ethics.

Major Moral Theories

Utilitarianism

• Philosopher: Jeremy Bentham

• Definition: A moral theory where the right action is the one that produces the greatest overall happiness (or least suffering) for the greatest number of people.

  • Focus: Outcomes rather than intentions; the consequence of the action matters most.

Deontology

• Philosopher: Immanuel Kant

• Definition: A moral theory that determines the rightness of an action based on adherence to moral rules or duties, irrespective of consequences.

  • Focus: Intentions and principles over outcomes.

Virtue Ethics

• Philosopher: Aristotle

• Definition: A moral theory concentrating on being a good person, emphasizing the development of good character traits (virtues) such as honesty, courage, kindness, and fairness.

  • Key Insight: The right action is what a virtuous person would do, acting with wisdom and good character.

Thought Experiment

The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas

• Description: Omelas is depicted as a utopian city where happiness prevails, but this joy is contingent upon the suffering of one child who is isolated, neglected, and miserable.

• Public Knowledge: All citizens are aware of this child's plight; while most believe it is a necessary sacrifice for the greater good, a few choose to leave the city, rejecting this moral compromise.

Psychological Approaches to Morality

Paul Bloom’s Reflections

• Quoting Justice Potter Stewart: "I shall not today attempt further to define… But I know it when I see it…" - emphasizes the subjective nature of moral recognition.

Audan Dahl’s Approach

• Definition of Morality: Obligatory concerns related to others’ welfare, rights, fairness, and justice, alongside the reasoning, judgment, emotions, and actions stemming from these concerns.

Philosophical Concepts

The Naturalistic Fallacy

• Definition: The error of assuming that because something occurs in nature, it ought to be accepted as morally right.

  • Key Idea: Just because something is natural does not mean it is morally acceptable.

Dual Process Models of Moral Judgment

• Proponents: Greene and others

• Claim: Moral judgments arise from two distinct psychological systems:

  • Emotional System

  • Characteristics: Fast, intuitive, and driven by feelings.

  • Tends to support deontological judgments (e.g., “It’s wrong to kill, no matter what”).

  • Rational System

  • Characteristics: Slow, deliberate, and based on reasoning.

  • Tends to support utilitarian judgments (e.g., “It’s acceptable to harm one to save others”).

  • Example: In the trolley problem, individuals might flip a switch to divert a trolley (utilitarian) but will hesitate to push someone onto the tracks (deontological).

  • Moral Logic: Moral reasoning is a conflict between emotion and reason.

Criticisms of Dual Process Models

• Too Simple: Real moral reasoning often intertwines emotion and reason.

• Unclear Evidence: Brain imaging (fMRI) does not straightforwardly categorize regions as purely emotional or rational.

• Lack of Realism: Scenarios like trolley problems may not reflect the complexities of real-life moral dilemmas.

Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model

• Claim: Moral judgments are primarily intuitive rather than analytically reasoned.

• Process: Deliberation often follows initial gut feelings to rationalize decisions.

  • Emphasis on Social Nature: Examines the role of persuasion, influence, and group dynamics in moral reasoning.

  • Concept of Moral Dumbfounding: Individuals may hold moral beliefs without the ability to articulate rational justifications.

Criticisms of the Social Intuitionist Model

• Underestimates Reasoning: Critics argue that reasoning can be central, not only a post-hoc justification.

• Oversimplifies Social Influence: It may neglect other factors such as rational deliberation or institutional norms.

Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt & Graham)

• Core Idea: Morality comprises several foundational elements helping to explain cultural and political divides in moral priorities.

Relevance of Moral Decisions

• Scale: 0 = never, 5 = always.

• Considered Foundations in Choices:

  • Harm

  • Fairness

  • Ingroup

  • Authority

  • Purity

• Self-reported Political Identity: Ranges from strongly liberal to strongly conservative, impacting moral foundation relevance.

Criticisms of Moral Foundations Theory

• Cultural Non-universality: Critics note that proposed moral foundations might not represent all cultures’ moral diversity.

• Measurement Bias: Tools like the Moral Foundations Questionnaire may influence responses or miss capturing complex reasoning.

• Overemphasis on Intuition: The model may neglect the importance of reasoning and deliberation.

• Political Overgeneralization: Links between moral foundations and political identity could oversimplify personal and situational variations.

Dyadic Morality

• Claim: Morality fundamentally revolves around the perception of harm.

• Core Concept: People determine moral or immoral actions by seeing them as involving a victim who suffers from a wrongdoer's actions.

  • Structure: Perpetrator → Harm → Victim.

  • Key Insight: Even in the absence of physical harm, moral judgments often focus on perceived suffering or vulnerability.

Criticisms of Dyadic Morality

• Narrow Focus: Critics argue moral judgments should not solely revolve around harm, noting the importance of fairness, loyalty, and purity concerns.

• Cultural Variation: Different societies might prioritize principles or duties over harm, challenging the universality of harm-centric judgments.

• Perceptual Emphasis: Moral judgments may incorporate reasoning or principles beyond mere perceptions of victimization.

• Ambiguity in “Harm”: Difficulty in determining what constitutes real vs. perceived harm complicates moral predictions.