Skip to main content

Reconciling Morality and Rationality

Positive Learning in the Moral Domain

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Positive Learning in the Age of Information

Abstract

Morality and (economic) rationality are often understood as juxtaposed: a moral course of action would not be economically beneficial and vice versa. The paper reveals why this view, although common, is premature. In particular it delivers a game-theoretic analysis of moral problems and solutions and explains how moral principles function as what economists call “institutions”. If this is the core of morality, there is no conflict between morality and (economic) rationality, properly understood. However, institutions always go with suitable sanctions (positive and/or negative), an aspect frequently overlooked in the moral camp. This has important consequences for positive learning in the moral domain, in particular with respect to fostering morality and rationality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  • Aumann, R. J. (1987). Correlated equilibrium and an expression of Bayesian rationality. Econometrica, 55, 1-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K. (2008). Moral judgment in economic situations – Towards systemic ethics. In F. Oser & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved: Global citizenship development and sources of moral values (pp. 359-370). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K., Brütting, B., Lüdecke-Plümer, S., Minnameier, G., Schirmer, U., & Schmid, S. N. (1996). Zur Entwicklung moralischer Urteilskompetenz in der kaufmännischen Erstausbildung – Empirische Befunde und praktische Probleme. In K. Beck & H. Heid (Eds.), Lehr-Lern-Prozesse in der kaufmännischen Erstausbildung – Wissenserwerb, Motivierungsgeschehen und Handlungskompetenzen. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, Beiheft, 13, 187-205. Stuttgart, Germany: Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K., Heinrichs, K., Minnameier, G., & Parche-Kawik, K. (1999). Homogeneity of moral judgement? – Apprentices solving business conflicts. Journal of Moral Education, 28, 429-443.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, K., Dransfeld, A., Minnameier, G., & Wuttke, E. (2002). Autonomy in heterogeneity? Development of moral judgement behaviour during business education. In K. Beck (Eds.), Teaching-learning processes in vocational education - Foundations of modern training programmes (p. 87-119). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Binmore, K. (2010). Game theory and institutions. Journal of Comparative Economics, 38, 245-252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binmore, K. (2011). Natural justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter, J. R., & Irons, M. (1991). Are economists different, and if so, why? Journal of Economic Perspectives 5: 171–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, F., & List, D. (2013). A reason-based theory of rational choice. Noûs 47, 104-134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gintis, H. (2014). The bounds of reason: Game theory and the unification of the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by religion and politics. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1651/2001). Leviathan. South Bend, IN: Infomotions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, D. L., & Denton, K. (2005). Toward a more pragmatic approach to morality: A critical evaluation of Kohlberg’s model. Psychological Review, 112, 629-649.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marwell, G., & Ames, R. (1981). Economists free ride, does anyone else? Journal of Public Economics, 15, 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnameier, G. (2010). The Problem of Moral Motivation and the Happy Victimizer Phenomenon – Killing two birds with one stone . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 129, 55-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnameier, G. (2012). A cognitive approach to the ‘happy victimiser’. Journal of Moral Education 41, 491-508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnameier, G. (2013). Deontic and responsibility judgments: An inferential analysis. In F. Oser, K. Heinrichs & T. Lovat (Eds.), Handbook of moral motivation: Theories, models, applications (pp. 69-82). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnameier, G. (2016). Rationalität und Moralität – Zum systematischen Ort der Moral im Kontext von Präferenzen und Restriktionen. Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Unternehmens ethik 17, 259-285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minnameier, G., Heinrichs, K., & Kirschbaum, F. (2016). Sozialkompetenz als Moralkompetenz – Theoretische und empirische Analysen. Zeitschrift für Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik, 112, 636-666.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunner-Winkler, G. (2007). Development of moral motivation from childhood to early adulthood. Journal of Moral Education, 36, 399–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rai, T. S., & Fiske, A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review, 118, 57-75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J. R. (1984). The major components of morality. In W. M. Kurtinez & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral development (pp. 24-38). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohlbergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruske, R., & Suttner, J. (2012). Wie (un-)fair sind Ökonomen? – Neue empirische Evidenz zur Marktbewertung und Rationalität. ORDO: Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, 63, 179–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. London, England: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten, R., & Ockenfels, A. (1998). An experimental solidarity game. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 34, 517-539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turiel, E. (2006). Thought, emotions, and social interactional processes of moral development. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 7-35). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, L. (2004). Gus in the gap: Bridging the judgment-action gap in moral functioning. In D. K. Lapsley & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development, self, and identity (pp. 1-20). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia et al. (2017). Positive Learning in the Age of Information. Unpublished Manuscript, Draft Proposal Cluster of Excellence, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gerhard Minnameier .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Minnameier, G. (2018). Reconciling Morality and Rationality. In: Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Wittum, G., Dengel, A. (eds) Positive Learning in the Age of Information. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19567-0_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-19567-0_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-19566-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-19567-0

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics