Don Forsyth
University of Richmond

• Right vs. wrong
• Good vs. evil
• What you should do?
• How should we make moral decisions?
Philosophical analyses:
• Deontology
• Teleology
• Egoism
• Relativism
• Justice

• 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
• Moral development
• Individual differences
• 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

• 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

• an individual’s organized set of beliefs and values pertaining to ethics
• individuals are intuitive “moral philosophers”
Example: From the great philosopher, Calvin

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).

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”)

•
Follow the rules
• Stick to your principles
•
Do what is right
• Don’t do what is wrong
•
Tolerate differences
• Don’t expect others to act as you do
•
Rules, and morality, change over time
•
No rule is sacred

• Do no harm
• Promote others’ welfare
•
Do not weigh ends against the means
• Trade-offs are unavoidable
•
Weigh the good against the bad
•
Calculate costbenefit ratio and choose rationally

The Ethics Position Questionnaire
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 Ethics Position Questionnaire
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.

3
9.3
Low
Relativism
Relativism: Some personal moral codes emphasize the importance of universal ethical rules; others do not endorse universal principles
15
High
Relativism

3
10.5
15
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.
High
Idealism

• 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
Low
Idealism
High
Relativism
Subjectivist
Exceptionist
Situationist
Absolutist
Low
Relativism
High
Idealism

High
Low
Subjectivist
Appraisals based on personal values and perspective rather than universal principles
Situationist
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
Idealism
Absolutist
Assumes that the best possible outcome can always be achieved by following universal moral rules
High

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

6
5
4
3
2
1
0
9
8
7
Example: Judgments of Research Procedures
Situationists
Subjectivists
Exceptionists
Absolutists

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

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….
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
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
Kindness
Fairness
Selfsacrifice
Respect
Reverence
Harm Recipr.
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.
Liberals
Moral debates in contemporary society
Harm Recipr.
Ingroup Hierar.
Purity

Example: Health Care Reform
Compassion
Harm
Equal rights
Recipr.
Unfair
Outsiders
Served
Profession
Harmed
Ingroup Hierar.
Unhealthy
Purity

Example: Marriage Rights for Gays
Compassion
Harm
Equal rights
Recipr.
Heterosexism
Against God
+ tradition
Ingroup 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), 366-
385. 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

Implications and Future Directions
In Sum
Relativism
Personal Moral
Philosophies
Idealism
Universalism Consequentialism

Thank you!