Advertisement

Psychology Instead of Ethics? Why Psychological Research Is Important but Cannot Replace Ethics

Chapter

Abstract

Recent research in cognitive and moral psychology suggests that our judgments and decisions are primarily driven by intuitions and that giving reasons is a matter of posthoc rationalization or even confabulation – thus challenging the ethical self-conception held by common sense and many philosophers. Do these empirical findings prompt us to abandon the belief that we act and decide on the basis of reasons? I will point to our everyday practice and use the heuristic approach of decision making to argue that they do not. We have, at least, two good reasons to answer the question ‘Psychology instead of Ethics?´ in the negative. The heuristic approach is not only compatible with a rationalist position; it specifies the underlying rules of moral judgments. Combining my arguments from common sense reasoning with the heuristic approach allows me to reinterpret the empirical findings as being about application and systematic errors (bias) of otherwise adaptive heuristics. My proposal for a reconciliation of the philosophical and psychological position will lead to the conclusion that normative and psychological questions are mutually dependent. While not sufficient on their own, both positions are necessary for an informed picture about our reasoning abilities as well as for our ethical self-conception.

Keywords

Moral Judgment Heuristic Approach Moral Philosophy Psychological Rationalism Moral Psychology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blair, R.J.R. (1995). A cognitive developmental approach to morality: investigating the psychopath. Cognition 57, 1–29.Google Scholar
  2. Blair, R. (1997). Moral reasoning and the child with psychopathic tendencies. Personality and Individual Differences 22, 731–739.Google Scholar
  3. Brandom, R. (1994). Making it explicit. Reasoning, representing, and discursive commitment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. van den Bos, W., & Güroglu, B. (2009). The role of ventral medial prefrontal cortex in social decision making. The Journal of Neuroscience 29(24), 7631–7632.Google Scholar
  5. Cheng, P.W., Holygak, K.J., Nisbett, R. E., & Oliver, M. (1986). Pragmatic versus syntactic approaches to training deductive reasoning. Cognitive Psychology 18, 293–328.Google Scholar
  6. Darley J.M., & Batson, C.D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jerichow: A Study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 27(1), 100–108.Google Scholar
  7. Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Doris, J. M. (1998). Lack of character. Personality and moral behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Eskine, K.J., Kacinik, N.A., & Prinz, J.J. (2011). A bad taste in the mouth: Gustatory disgust influences moral judgment. Psychological Science 22(3), 295–299.Google Scholar
  10. Gazzaniga, M. S., & LeDoux, J. E. (1978). The integrated mind. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Moral intuitions= Fast and frugal heuristics? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology. Volume 2: The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 1–26). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Greene, J.D., Sommerville, R.B., Nystrom, L.E., Darley, J.M., & Cohen, J.D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science 293, 2105–2108.Google Scholar
  13. Greene, J. D. (2007). Why are VMPFC patients more utilitarian?: A dual-process theory of moral judgment explains. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(8), 322–323.Google Scholar
  14. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Reviews 108(4), 814–834.Google Scholar
  15. Harenski, C.L., & Hamann, S. (2005). Neural correlates of regulating negative emotions related to moral violations. Neuroimage 30, 313–324.Google Scholar
  16. Heekeren, H.R., Wartenburger, I., Schmidt, H., Schwintowski, H.-P., & Villringer, A. (2003). An FMRI study of simple ethical decision making. Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropsychology 14(9), 1215–1219.Google Scholar
  17. Horberg, E.J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D., & Cohan, A.B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97(6), 963–976.Google Scholar
  18. Horberg, E.J., Oveis, C., & Keltner, D. (2011). Emotions as moral amplifiers: An appraisal tendency approach to the influences of distinct emotions upon moral judgment. Emotion Review 3(3), 237–244.Google Scholar
  19. Huebner, B., Dwyer, S., & Hauser, M. (2008). The role of emotion in moral psychology. Trends in Cognitive Science 13(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  20. Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., & Bloom, P. (2012). Disgusting smells cause decreased liking of gay men. Emotion 12(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  21. Jones A., & Fitness, J. (2008). Moral hypervigilance: The influence of disgust sensitivity in the moral domain. Emotion 8(5), 613–627.Google Scholar
  22. Joyce, R. (2008). What neuroscience can (and cannot) contribute to metaethics. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral Psychology Volume 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development (pp. 371–394). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review 93(5), 1449–1475.Google Scholar
  24. Ladwig, B. (2003). Autonomie als Antwortfähigkeit. Unpublished conference paper, talk on the 5th GAP Conference in Bielefeld: http://www.gap5.de/proceedings/pdf/547-559_ladwig.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2014.
  25. Larrick, R. P. (2004). Debiasing. In D.J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 316–33). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Mazar, N., & Zhong, C.-B. (2010). Do green products make us better people? Psychological Science 21(4), 494–498.Google Scholar
  27. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34, 57–111.Google Scholar
  28. Moll, J., Oliveira-Souza, R., Esliner, P.J., Bramati, I. E., Mourao-Miranda, J., Andreiuolo, P. A., & Pessoa, L. (2002a). The neural correlates of moral sensitivity. A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation of basic and moral emotions. The Journal of Neuroscience 22(7), 2730–2736.Google Scholar
  29. Moll, J., Oliveira-Souza, R., Bramati, I.E., & Grafman, J. (2002b). Functional networks in emotional moral and nonmoral social judgments. NeuroImage 16, 696–703.Google Scholar
  30. Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000). Overcoming the inevitable anchoring effect: Considering the opposite compensates for selective accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26(9), 1142–1150.Google Scholar
  31. Newstead, S. (2001) Introspection-A new look? The Psychologist 14(1), 34.Google Scholar
  32. Nisbett, R.E, & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. In Psychological Review 84(3), 231–260.Google Scholar
  33. Payne, J. W., & Bettman, J.R. (2004). Walking with the scarecrow: The information-processing approach to decision research. In D.J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp. 110–132). Oxford, U.K.: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Prinz, J. (2006). The emotional basis of moral judgment. Philosophical Explorations 9(1), 29–43.Google Scholar
  35. Pronin, E., Wegner, D.M., McCarthy, K., & Rodriguez, S. (2006). Everyday magical powers: The role of apparent mental causation in the overestimation of personal influence. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 91(2), 218–231.Google Scholar
  36. Schnall, S., Benton, J., & Harvey, S. (2008a). With a clean conscience. Cleanliness reduces the severity of moral judgments. Psychological Science 19(12), 1219–1222.Google Scholar
  37. Schnall, S., Haidt, J., & Jordan, A.H. (2008b). Disgust as embodied moral emotion. Personaity and Social Psychology Bulletin 34(8), 1096–1109.Google Scholar
  38. Searle, J. (2000). Mind, language and society: Philosophy in the real world. London: Phoenix.Google Scholar
  39. Sellars, W. (1997). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind (ed. by Brandom, R.) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Sie, M., & Wouters, A. (2010). The BCN challenge to compatibilist free will and personal responsibility. Neuroethics 3(2), 121–133.Google Scholar
  41. Sommer, M., Rothmayr, C., Döhnel, K., Meinhardt, J., Schwerdtner, J., Sodian, B., & Hajak, G. (2010). How should I decide? The neural correlates of everyday moral reasoning. Neuropsychologia 48, 2018–2016.Google Scholar
  42. Sunstein, C. (2005). Moral heuristics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (4), 531–573.Google Scholar
  43. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131.Google Scholar
  44. Valdesolo P., & de Steno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science 17(6), 476–477.Google Scholar
  45. Waldmann, M., Nagel, J., & Wiegmann, A. (2012). Moral judgment. In K.J. Holyoak & R.G. Morrison (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 364–389). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Wegner, D.M., & Wheatly, T. (1999). Apparent mental causation: Sources of the experience of will. American Psychologist 54, 480–491.Google Scholar
  47. Wheatly, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science 16(10), 780–784.Google Scholar
  48. Wilson, T., & Brekke, N. (1994). Mental contamination and mental correction: Unwanted influences on judgments and evaluations. Psychological Bulletin 116 (1), 117–142.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Center for Neurophilosophy and Ethics of NeurosciencesLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenGermany

Personalised recommendations