Making moral decisions

This module offers a new perspective on morality. Instead of judging what is right, and what is wrong, it provides insights into how people make moral decisions. In other words, it is not about evaluating moral choices, but rather taking insights into why and basing on which criteria they are made. This way the module can become a backbone for any other sensitive or controversial topic.

Defining morality

Morality is a set of rules that define what is right and wrong. The rules consist of norms and values. Social norms are about how one should behave and act – they are collective representations of acceptable way of behavior or conduct. Values on the other hand represent what is important. In other words, the values say what is important, while norms – how one shall achieve it. Together they make a rule. Some rules can be called imperatives (e.g. thou shalt not kill, you should believe in science), some other are facultative (e.g. you can smoke here, you can be patient), while other rules are so hard to achieve that they are called recommendations (e.g. it would be beneficial for the society if everyone helped each other, it would be great if people loved each other).

Moral norms build one of many normative systems such as law or custom that differ from each other. They address many sensitive and fundamental issues such as biological existence, dignity, independence, privacy, trust, or justice. Some of these norms are more of a recommendation – i.e., moral virtues that speak for moral excellence. Often moral norms are claimed to be the most important set of norms.

 

 

There are two types of relativization – personal (certain norm does or does not apply to some people – e.g. you can buy alcohol, but only if you are adult), and situational (certain norm does not apply under some circumstances – e.g. students can generally talk with each other, but not during the class). Sometimes both types of relativization work at the same time – e.g. thou shalt not kill, unless you are a soldier (personal relativization) at war (situational relativization; see Exercise 1).

 

 

How does human learn morality?

For many years it has been believed that humans are born without innate morality and develop it in their life. This was the core idea behind the classical cognitive-developmental model of morality by an American psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987). According to thaty model humans learn moral values step by step in the process of socialization. Thus, morality is perceived as an activity that is primarily cognitive – i.e. people reason first and then make a moral choice. Kohlberg developed a six stages model, in which an individual learns how to make more advanced moral choices with age.

The first two stages are called preconventional – during which the child learns first how to obtain pleasure and avoid punishment (obedience and punishment orientation – stage 1), and later – how to make a good deal (self-interest orientation – stage 2). The second level is the conventional stage – when the morally correct acts are those, which are firstly approved by significant others (interpersonal accord and conformity – stage 3) and then by wider society (authority and social-order maintaining – stage 4). In the final level – postconventional – the individual respects the law and rules as intrinsic features (social contract orientation – stage 5), while in the last stage (universal ethical principles – 6) s/he is driven by abstract ethical principles. Interestingly, individuals only seldom reach the last stage; most often they are ranked between the 3rd and 5th stage. This approach has been challenged in many different ways in different political, social and cultural context. He was criticized for making his study only on boys, and not including girls. Moreover, his theory has been proved not to be culturally universal.

The five (or six) moral foundations

This model has been challenged in many ways in different political, social, and cultural context. Kohlberg was criticized for making his study only on boys, and not including girls. Social intuitionists have questioned the basic assumption behind Kohlberg’s theory – i.e. that morality comes from reasoning. For social intuitionists moral positions are driven by intuition rather than logic. One of them is Jonathan Haidt (1963), one of the most prominent contemporary social psychologists. According to him moral judgment is caused by quick moral intuitions rather than reasoning. What is more, moral reasoning serves as a post-hoc rationalization of judgements that had been already formed. This is what Haidt calls ‘moral dumbfounding’ – having a strong moral reaction despite undermined rational explanation (see Exercise 2).

These moral judgements are primarily intuitive, rationalized post-hoc, and sometimes (but seldom) changed through a discussion. While everyone has his own set of moral norms, they are to a great extend shared with other people. This is the collective morality – intuitive ethics that all people share. According to Haidt, Joseph and Graham human morality is framed into six moral foundations. These are:

• care/harm,
• fairness/cheating,
• loyalty/betrayal,
• authority/subversion,
• sanctity/degradation;
• later a sixth system was added – liberty/oppression.

They claim that all people have these moral foundations, yet they are not equally used across different cultures and political orientations. The Moral Foundation Theory has been used to explain differences between three main political orientations in the US, namely: liberals, libertarians and conservatives. Moreover, it seems to provide explanation of issues that are politically charged. They often are built on different moral values, which can be interpreted differently. For example one political party can speak in favour of accepting refugees and refer to care + fairness to those who are vulnerable (i.e. the refugees), while another political party can speak against accepting refuges and build its narrative around care + loyalty (we protect ourselves against the newcomers).

The basic six moral foundations can be described in the following positive terms:

• Care is about protecting others (i.e. not doing harm),
• Fairness is about justice, honesty and reciprocity (i.e. not cheating)
• Loyalty is about carrying for your own group – such as family, religious, or national group (i.e. not betraying them),
• Authority is about hierarchy and obeying rules and norms grounded in tradition (i.e. not subverting to them)
• Sanctity is about disgust (often religiously motivated) for things deemed as not clean, or impure (i.e. protection from degradation).
• Liberty is about equality and solidarity and being against any dominance (i.e. against oppression)

  Match the moral foundations cards (positive + negative value)

 

Moral Foundations Questionnaire (by J. Haidt et al.) is a tool that enables checking one’s moral foundations (see Exercise 3). At the same time, moral foundations can predict one’s political orientation. In case of the US the liberals use mainly two foundations – care and fairness, while conservatives use all six (with a slight dominance of the other three ones: loyalty, authority and sanctity), and libertarians are most sensitive to the liberty foundation (the one added later). The political discourse is built around these foundations with conservatives having more moral foundations to choose from.

Conclusion

This e-material is intended to support the teacher with a framework to discuss any controversial or sensitive topic. It provides the students with a better understanding of how their moral judgements work and in what core values they are grounded. It also offers a safe space to discuss controversial issues, which are not that much sensitive to the students (e.g. eating a dog instead of discussing abortion). They also sensitize students to critically approach political and social narratives which are built on moral values.