Transcript ILA Powerpoint - Society for Personality and Social Psychology

Ethics Position Theory:
Morality, Politics, and
Happiness
Don Forsyth
University of Richmond
Philosophical Study of Ethics
Normative
ethics
• Right vs. wrong
• Good vs. evil
• What you should
do?
• How should we
make moral
decisions?
Philosophical analyses:
• Deontology
• Egoism
• Teleology
• Relativism
• Justice
Psychological Study of Ethics
Descriptive
ethics
• How do people
decide what is
right vs. wrong?
• When (and why)
do people act in
ways that are
morally
questionable?
Scientific analyses:
• Moral judgment
• Individual differences
• Moral development • Cross-cultural variations
• Values, virtues, character
“Reasonable people disagree…”
• Overview of one
approach to individual
differences in judgments
about ethics
• Review, briefly,
empirical findings,
focusing on moral
judgments
• Report of a preliminary
study of relationship
between moral thought
and political orientation
Individual Differences in Morality
• Should Heinz steal the drug?
• Should you push the switch to divert the trolley?
• Should psychologists help develop “interview”
methods for the military?
• Is a lie, told for a “right purpose” (say, by a
researcher) morally permissible?
• Should social psychologists fake their data?
• Are we morally obligated to care for others?
Answers Depend on your Individual
Moral Philosophy
Moral Philosophies
Moral Position (or philosophy):
• an individual’s organized set of
beliefs and values pertaining to
ethics
• individuals are intuitive “moral
philosophers”
Example: From the great philosopher, Calvin
Great variation, but 2 themes
1.Principle-based morality: Aren’t there
rules about what’s right and wrong?
• Moral standards (e.g., lying,
stealing)
• General principles (e.g., Golden
Rule, Kant’s categorical imperative)
• Codes of ethics (e.g., Hippocratic
Oath; Geneva Convention).
Second theme
2. Consequence-based morality: Shouldn’t
we try to maximize happiness and minimize
harm?
• Beneficence (doing good works that help
others)
• Utilitarianism (e.g., Bentham’s greatest
good for the greatest number )
• Primum non nocere (“first, do no harm”)
First Theme: Principles
Universalism
• Follow the rules
• Stick to your
principles
• Do what is right
• Don’t do what is
wrong
Relativism
• Tolerate differences
• Don’t expect others
to act as you do
• Rules, and morality,
change over time
• No rule is sacred
Second Theme: Consequences
Idealism
• Do no harm
• Promote others’
welfare
• Do not weigh ends
against the means
Consequentialism
• Trade-offs are
unavoidable
• Weigh the good
against the bad
• Calculate costbenefit ratio and
choose rationally
These 2 themes, or dimensions, emerged across a number of
studies of individual differences in moral judgment
The Ethics Position Questionnaire
Measuring Relativism
1. Different types of moralities cannot be
compared as to rightness.
2. What is ethical varies from one situation and
society to another.
3. Whether a lie is judged to be moral or immoral
depends upon the circumstances surrounding
the action.
The full question has 20 questions, rather than just these 6
The Ethics Position Questionnaire
Measuring Idealism
4. One should never psychologically or physically
harm another person.
5. If an action could harm an innocent other, then it
should not be done.
6. Deciding whether or not to perform an act by
balancing the positive consequences of the act
against the negative consequences of the act is
immoral.
Relativism
3
Low
Relativism
9.3
Relativism: Some
personal moral codes
emphasize the
importance of universal
ethical rules; others do
not endorse universal
principles
15
High
Relativism
Idealism
3
Low
Idealism
Idealism: a fundamental
concern for the welfare of
others; some assume that
we should avoid harming
others, others assume harm
will sometimes be necessary
to produce good.
10.5
15
High
Idealism
Dimensions vs. Types
• People vary from
low to high in
idealism and
relativism
• Can also “type”
people, as
relatively high
versus low
• If consider both
dimensions,
typing yields a
four-fold
classification
High
Relativism
Subjectivist
Situationist
Low
Idealism
High
Idealism
Exceptionist
Absolutist
Low
Relativism
Four Ethical Ideologies
Relativism
High
Subjectivist
Situationist
Appraisals based on
personal values and
perspective rather
than universal
principles
Rejects moral rules;
advocates
individualistic analysis
of each act in each
situation
Exceptionist
Moral absolutes guide
judgments but
pragmatically open to
exceptions to these
standards; utilitarian
Low
Absolutist
Assumes that the best
possible outcome can
always be achieved by
following universal
moral rules
High
Idealism
Studies of the “Moral mind”
Do people with different moral
philosophies “think about” morality
differently?
1. People differ in their conclusions about morality:
their moral judgments.
•
•
•
•
Absolutists harshest if principle violated
Situationists sensitive to harm
Subjectivists unpredictable
Exceptionists lenient if justification
Example: Judgments of Research Procedures
9
How Unethical
8
7
6
5
4
Situationists
3
Subjectivists
2
Exceptionists
1
Absolutists
0
2. People may differ in how they make their
moral judgments
• Some evidence suggests situationists process information in
a more complex way than others (multiplicative
combinatorial model rather than additive).
• Absolutists, if “cognitively busy,” process information more
slowly
Reaction Time
Abs
Exc
Sub
Sit
3. People may differ in
how they behave in
morally charged
settings.
• Some evidence
suggests judgments
influence actions
• BUT: Moral words do
not necessarily =
moral deeds
4. But absolutists certainly feel worse after
acting immorally….
Self-ratings
5
4
3
2
1
0
5. Ethics positions across cultures
Using meta-analysis, we (Forsyth, O’Boyle, &
McDaniel, 2008) explored average EPQ scores across
various countries. Identified 139 samples of over
30,000 individuals.
Consistent relations with Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
Forsyth & O’Boyle (2013) found a relationship between a country’s ethics
position and average levels of “happiness”.
300
Level of Happiness
250
200
150
100
50
0
Absolutist
Situationist
Subjectivist
Exceptionist
How about
politics?
Are the differences between conservative and
liberal views rooted in moral differences?
Jon Haidt’s Moral
Foundations Theory
Selfsacrifice
Kindness
Fairness
Harm
Recipr.
Reverence
Respect
Ingroup
Hierar.
Purity
Conservatives and most
traditional societies
(esp. agricultural) build
on all five foundations,
create a broad morality.
Regulates most action;
values tradition.
Moral debates in contemporary society
Conservatives
Harm
Recipr.
Ingroup
Hierar.
Purity
Liberals and more mobile,
mercantile societies hypervalue harm and reciprocity;
distrust and overrule
hierarchy, purity, and
sometimes in-group. Create
a narrow morality, values
autonomy, rights, and selfexpression.
Moral debates in contemporary society
Liberals
Harm
Recipr.
Ingroup
Hierar.
Purity
Example: Health Care Reform
Compassion
Harm
Equal
rights
Recipr.
Unfair
Outsiders
Served
Ingroup
Profession
Harmed
Hierar.
Unhealthy
Purity
Example: Marriage Rights for Gays
Compassion
Harm
Equal
rights
Recipr.
Heterosexism
Ingroup
Against God
+ tradition
Hierar.
Sin, perversion
Purity
Haidt and his colleagues find some suggestive evidence of two
clusters—is one of these idealism, the other relativism?
Source: Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011).
Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
Internet-based survey
completed the EPQ and
the MFQ
9128 participants (fewer
for the political attitudes
measures)
130 countries
a bit “liberal” of a sample
Liberal ----- Conservative Values
Implications and Future Directions
In Sum
Personal Moral
Philosophies
Relativism
Idealism
Universalism
Consequentialism
Thank you!