Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Science and Morality

  • Justin K. MogilskiEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_453-1

Synonyms

Definition

The scientific study of morality has increasingly revealed its underlying psychological processes and features.

Introduction

Presently, there is no unified definition of morality (Krebs 2011). From a lay perspective, morality is one’s sense of the difference between right and wrong. It is a system of personal attitudes and beliefs about what actions are socially permissible, which behaviors should be morally condemned, and what degree of punishment is appropriate for various social transgressions; it is a collection of conventional rules that guide how individuals navigate and solve ethical dilemmas. In lieu of offering definitions of morality, current scientific research on morality attempts to identify the underlying psychology of moral intuitions by organizing aspects of morality into universal processes or features (Graham et al. 2013; Haidt and Joseph 2004); identifying the evolved, mechanistic design of moral...

Keywords

Moral Judgment Moral Intuition Moral Cognition Moral Psychology Moral Condemnation 
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2016). The tripartite theory of Machiavellian morality: Judgment, influence, and conscience as distinct moral adaptations. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 3–26). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, 113, 628–647.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumard, N. (2010). Has punishment played a role in the evolution of cooperation? A critical review. Mind & Society, 9, 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baumard, N., André, J. B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 59–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Benavidez, T. M., Neria, A. L., & Jones, D. N. (2016). The bond that breaks: Closeness and honor predict morality-related aggression. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 140–148.Google Scholar
  6. Bøggild, T., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). The evolved functions of procedural fairness: An adaptation for politics. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 247–276). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2006). Evolutionary psychology, moral heuristics, and the law. Cambridge, MA: Dahlem University Press.Google Scholar
  9. de Waal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112, 281–299.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 477–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. DeScioli, P., Christner, J., & Kurzban, R. (2011). The omission strategy. Psychological Science, 22, 442–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Moral intuition= fast and frugal heuristics? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Glenn, A. L., Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., & Haidt, J. (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy? Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 384–398.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greene, J. (2004). Cognitive neuroscience and the structure of the moral mind. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), Innateness and the structure of the mind (pp. 338–352). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Greene, J. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them. New York: Atlantic Books.Google Scholar
  18. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haidt, J., & Pinker, S. (2016). Moral psychology: An exchange. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/07/moral-psychology-an-exchange/
  20. Harris, S. (2011). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  21. Harris, S. (2014). The marionette’s lament. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from the World Wide Web: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-marionettes-lament
  22. Krebs, D. (2011). The origins of morality: An evolutionary account. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurzban, R., Dukes, A., & Weeden, J. (2010). Sex, drugs and moral goals: Reproductive strategies and views about recreational drugs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 277, 3501–3508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurzban, R., DeScioli, P., & Fein, D. (2012). Hamilton vs. Kant: Pitting adaptations for altruism against adaptations for moral judgment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marczyk, J. (2015). Moral alliance strategies theory. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1, 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 143–152.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Stake, J. E. (2016). Property law reflections of a sense of right and wrong. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 277–287). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality. In H. Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Human morality & sociality: Evolutionary & comparative perspectives (pp. 91–234). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  29. Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., & Price, M. E. (2006). Cognitive adaptations for n-person exchange: The evolutionary roots of organizational behavior. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27, 103–129.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oakland UniversityRochesterUSA