Discussion Questions
1 Where Does Morality Come From?
1. Re the origin of morality, what, according to Haidt, is the difference between nativism, empiricism
and rationalism? Which, if any, of these theories does Haidt favor?
•
•
•
nativism – inborn
empiricism – we learn them (thus morals could vary extensively from one culture to another)
rationalism – we construct them on the basis of our (social) experiences, but only as on the mind
develops (Piaget, Kohlberg, Turiel)
2. Note 7 (p 7) – Haidt: infants may actually react to violations of fairness as early as 15 months
(Schmidt & Sommerville 2011). That’s our seminar paper for Thursday.
3. What is Kohlberg’s view of moral development? What is the difference between the preconventional, conventional, and post-conventional stages? How does his view relate to Piaget’s
developmental theory?
Pre-conventional: child judges moral issues by superficial features (boy was punished, therefore he
did something wrong)
Conventional: child can understand and manipulate social rules and conventions (‘age of petty
legalisms’, child still respects authority, even if they chafe)
Post-conventional: After puberty, child begins to think for himself, question authority, sometimes
justify breaking rules in the cause of some greater moral principle, most often justice. Becoming
‘moral philosophers’ – trying to construct coherent ethical systems for themselves.
Kohlberg: The fundamental moral concept is harm/care and it develops over time, requiring both
maturation of the individual and experiences in social interactions (typically with peers). It is very
similar to Piaget’s view in that it requires both maturation (child has to have the mental capacity
to develop a concept) and experience with the relevant part of the world (social relations in this
case).
4. What does Haidt mean when he says that American and W. European cultures have ‘stripped
down and thinned out the thick, all-encompassing moral orders [typical of original cultures]”?
We have boiled it all down to harm/care (and perhaps fairness). As we will see, however, this is
just a segment (roughly the liberal segment) of American culture that has done so.
5. What is the distinction Turiel makes between moral rules and social conventions?
Turiel: Moral rules are rules related to “justice, rights, and welfare pertaining to how people ought
to related to each other”. In Haidt’s terms, harm/care and fairness.
Moral rules are fundamental, applying in all circumstances and societies, whereas social
conventions vary from context to context and are arbitrary, not fundamentally moral.
6. What is the distinction Shweder makes between individualistic and sociocentric cultures? In his
study, in what ways did individuals in in Hyde Park, Chicago differ from those in Orissa, India?
Shweder: “all societies must resolve a small set of questions about how to order society, the most
important being how to balance the needs of individuals and groups … seem to be just two
primary ways of answering this question – individualistic vs sociocentric cultures – latter solution is
much more common – “no bright line separated moral rules (preventing harm) from social
conventions (regulating behaviors not linked directly to harm)”.
7. What is Turiel’s major criticism of the Shweder et al study? In Haidt’s research, how did he deal
with this criticism?
Shweder used ‘trick’ questions – didn’t control by asking subjects about harm (e.g., wife is hurting
her husband by eating a ‘hot’ food which could lead her into having sex)– would they condemn
actions that were clearly harmless? Haidt used harmless taboo violations (eating your dead dog,
sex with chicken) – most involve disgust or disrespect – but action done in private, no one harmed.
8. What were the results of Haidt’s research. Did they favor Turiel or Shweder? What was the biggest
surprise in these results.
Haidt et al: “Is it wrong to eat your dog?” – with harm removed, still gets the same cultural
differences (country and class). Biggest surprise is that class difference within a society is bigger
than difference between societies! (Could have stayed in Philly and done the whole expt there.)
9. What is ‘moral dumbfounding’?
Person rendered speechless or searching for explanations when asked to explain verbally what
they knew intuitively.
10. What does Hume mean by “reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can
never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”?
That reason find the means to achieve whatever ends are chosen by the passions (emotional
intuitions).
In sum: Morality doesn’t come primarily from reasoning, but some combination of innate
reactions and social learning.