Introduction to Moral Psychology
S36XX
Summer 2012
Course Information
ROOM NUMBER
DAYS AND TIMES
Instructor Information
James Cornwell
Email: jfc2134@columbia.edu
Office: 329 Schermerhorn
OFFICE HOURS
Prerequisites: Psychology 1001 or equivalent, plus permission of the instructor.
Course Description
This seminar provides an introduction to the major theories, issues, and research relevant
to the field of moral psychology. Drawing from a variety of fields—philosophy, social
psychology, cognitive psychology, developmental psychology, and evolutionary theory—
we will investigate what morality is, how it develops, and how it functions in society. We
will focus particularly on the different schools of thought within moral psychology, and
how particular psychological issues such as the “person versus situation” debate, the
debate over the existence of free will, and debates concerning motivated cognition
contribute to this subfield. This course is designed to give students an overview of the
subject, and opportunities to think critically about its implications.
Ideal Preparation
Students are recommended to have a strong background in psychology, including
familiarity with psychological research methods. Students from outside of psychology with
a background in philosophy, behavioral economics, or evolutionary biology are welcome,
but will need my permission before enrolling. The course is limited to 12 students. A high
level of engagement will be expected of each student selected to participate.
Course Overview
Human morality is a multi-faceted and complex subject that has drawn the interest of
major intellectuals since the time of the ancients. No matter what their other differences in
perspective, those who have looked at the subject of morality agree that it is an
exceptionally important aspect of what it means to be human. It is the key to maintaining a
common social life, and, many believe, the key to ultimate happiness.
This course will primarily provide an introduction to the subject of morality as
psychologists have studied it. We will start with three basic philosophical approaches to
moral questions, and the following weeks will each involve an overview of one of the many
empirical investigations into morality. We will explore the evolution of morality, its
ontogenetic development in humans, the place of reason versus emotion in moral decisionmaking, the place of human agency and responsibility in moral life, the role of the situation
in determining moral behavior, and the value of moral character. Through participation in
the twice-weekly discussions and the writing of two papers, you will develop and apply a
basic knowledge of the subject of moral psychology.
Course Objectives
1. As a student, you will have the opportunity to cultivate a working knowledge of the
three major philosophical approaches to morality, and the historical foundations
they provide for later work in moral psychology.
2. You will learn about the empirical research in behavioral, social, cognitive, and
developmental psychology relevant to moral judgments, decision-making, and
behavior, and the methods that underlie their claims.
3. You will be able to critically assess different approaches to morality in the literature
in light of research and theory in adjacent fields. If you are a psychology student,
you will leave the class able to conduct moral psychology research of your own. If
you’re a student in another area, you will be able to incorporate research on moral
psychology into work in your own field.
Course Organization
Class
The course will meet twice weekly for three hours. Each meeting, except the first, will
consist of two or three (depending on the class size) student presentations on the assigned
readings; these will be evenly spaced through the class time, and followed by group
discussion. The major focus of class meetings will be on discussion of the assigned
readings, so be certain to read and understand them beforehand; the quality of your class
participation will count for a substantial portion of your grade. We will explicitly discuss
what I’m looking for in terms of participation during the first class, and I may contact you
during the course of the seminar in order to give you constructive feedback on your
participation in order to improve it.
CourseWorks Postings
You will post a one-page summary of the assigned readings on CourseWorks no later than 5
PM the day before class meets. Your post should provide a summary of the major ideas of
each reading, as well as the evidence that each puts forward in support of those ideas. Also
think about some of the ideas’ implications for other material in the course, and include
these thoughts in your post. Although I will not be assigning letter grades to these posts, I
will provide you with comments on their form and content at the end of each class.
Thoughtful posts will greatly facilitate class discussion. Missing posts will be reflected in
your CourseWorks Postings portion of your grade.
Presentations
You will present at least two times during the course. Your presentations will consist of
10-15 minute overviews of one of the assigned readings for the day, along with an
introduction to the questions raised or addressed by that reading. You are encouraged to
critically analyze the arguments in your reading (both pro and con) in order to spur a
healthy discussion. Take special care to note the methods and evidence that the authors
use to support their points of view. The final portion of your presentations should consist
of at least three open-ended questions/comments that should support discussion for the
remainder of the period assigned to that material. The second presentation will be worth
2
double the grade of the first presentation in order to allow room for improvement. I will be
meeting with students the week prior to their presentations.
Papers
You will write one major paper for this course based on one of two options. Option one is
to write a theoretical paper of no more than 12 pages. In this theoretical paper you will
argue for or against one of the three major philosophical approaches discussed during the
first week of the course in light of the empirical research discussed during the remainder of
the course. You will support your arguments with references to assigned readings.
Venturing beyond the course material is not required, though you may find it useful.
Before using outside material you should discuss it with me. I recommend this option if
you have a less extensive background in psychology.
Your second option will consist of an 8- to 10-page experiment proposal to aid in
distinguishing between two of the major theories of morality—either philosophical or
psychological—discussed during the course. This paper will be structured like a brief
empirical paper in psychology involving an introduction, a description of the methods
involved, and a brief description of what significant results would entail for the subject
under study. If you have a more extensive background in psychology, you may benefit from
this option.
A draft proposal for your paper will be due at the end of the fourth week of the
course and the final paper will be due at the end of the sixth week. You will be required to
meet with me individually by the end of the third week and again by the end of the fifth
week of the course to discuss your paper topics. A grading rubric will be provided for both
options by the end of the second week.
Grading
CourseWorks Postings: 15%
Participation: 20%
Presentations: 30% (10% for the first; 20% for the second)
Paper: 35%
There is no extra credit for this course. However, I will consider the quality of your
CourseWorks postings in deciding whether to bump up grades to the next highest level (i.e.
excellent and thoughtful postings may convince me to bump a high B+ to an A-).
Class Policies
Absences
Since class participation is a substantial portion of your grade, you will be expected to
attend and participate in each class period. Excused absences (which require a note from
your doctor or your advising dean) will not count against your grade, provided you write a
page-long summary of the readings assigned for each day missed. You and I will agree on
the deadline for these make-up summaries by email before you return to class.
3
Late Assignments
Grades for late assignments will generally be reduced by 10% for each day they are late.
However, if you contact me prior to the deadline, I am willing to discuss the possibility of
an extension for almost any reason. I generally prefer that you write high-quality papers
rather than have you submit something rushed in under a hard deadline.
If your paper is late due to unanticipated illness or family emergency, please provide
a note from your doctor or your advising dean explaining why you were unable to complete
the assignment on time.
Class Etiquette
Cell phones are not permitted. Laptops may be used. However, please be considerate to
those around you if you do use one. I understand that there are many gifted people out
there who are capable of multi-tasking between a high-level discussion of morality and
checking 140-character status updates on Facebook or Twitter, but please be considerate
of the fact that checking non-course-related materials on your laptop can be distracting to
those around you.
Academic Integrity
Academic integrity means presenting only your own work in your assignments. Taking
credit for the work of others is a serious violation of the academic community, and anyone
found to be guilty of cheating or plagiarizing will receive a zero for that assignment and will
be reported to the University. Information on what constitutes a violation of academic
integrity can be found in Columbia’s Undergraduate Guide to Academic Integrity
(http://www.college.columbia.edu/academics/integrity). These very serious issues aside,
think of how embarrassing it would be to be caught cheating on assignments in a course
about morality.
That said, if you have any questions about how to appropriately cite another’s work
or build upon someone else’s ideas, please feel free to contact me, as I’ll be happy to help!
Tentative Reading Schedule
There is no textbook required for this course. All required readings are available to you on
CourseWorks. Abbreviated titles of the readings are listed on the course calendar, and the
full citations are provided on the following pages along with recommended readings.
Below you will find a meeting-by-meeting overview of the required readings for this
course and the topics to be covered during their related class period. You will find that the
readings span a variety of topic areas; you may find some areas more challenging than
others. Since the major focus of this course is learning about moral psychology, I
encourage you to spend more time on the readings with which you are less familiar to give
yourself the broadest knowledge base possible. This will be especially helpful when
writing your papers.
You will also notice that there will often be more than two readings for a given
course meeting. Even if there are only presentations on two of the readings, the other
readings are still considered relevant to the discussion and are also required. If you are
presenting one of the assigned readings, you should take special care to read the other
assigned readings for that session, since they will aid you in leading the discussion.
Please note that the reading list below is subject to revision.
4
A final note: Many centers and institutions around New York City frequently offer a variety of
lectures on subjects relevant to moral psychology for students and the public. I will maintain a
schedule on CourseWorks to let you know when and where these events are taking place.
Class
Date
1
TBD
2
TBD
3
TBD
4
TBD
5
TBD
6
TBD
7
TBD
8
TBD
Discussion Topics
Assigned Readings
Week One: Philosophical Introduction
Aristotle, Ethics, I & III (pp. 5-21; 35-54)
 Course overview
MacIntyre, After Virtue, Ch. 12 (pp. 146-164)
 Virtue ethics
Kant, Grounding, I & II (pp. 7-48)
 Deontological turn
Hume, Principles of Morals, I & IX (pp. 13-15;
 Emotivism
72-81)
 Utilitarianism
Mill, Utilitarianism, Ch. 4 (pp. 35-41)
 Responses to these developments
MacIntyre, After Virtue, Ch. 3-4 (pp. 23-50)
Week Two: Evolutionary Theory
 Evolutionary psychology: pro and con Wilson & Sober, Unto Others, Ch. 2 (pp. 55-100)
Pinker, The Blank Slate, Ch. 15 (pp. 269-280)
 What does thinking about natural
Taylor, Sources of the Self, Chs. 1 & 3 (pp. 3-24;
selection help us answer?
53-90)
 What does it oversimplify?
De Waal, Good Natured, Ch. 2-3 (pp. 40-132)
 Do non-linguistic animals have
Tomasello, Why We Cooperate, Ch. 1 (pp. 1-48)
systems for moral judgments and
Smith, Moral, Believing Animals, Ch. 2 (pp. 7decision-making?
44)
 What does this tell us about
ourselves? How might it mislead us?
Week Three: Major Theoretical Models
Piaget, Moral Judgment of the Child, Chs. 1.1 –
 Cognitive-developmental view
1.6 (pp. 13-75)
 How does morality develop with
Kohlberg, Moral Stages, Chs. 2 (pp. 104-164)
reason?
Turiel, Morality and Convention, Chs. 3 & 7 (pp.
33-49; 137-160)
Haidt, Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail (pp.
 Social-intuitionist view
 What role does emotion play in moral 814-834)
Pizarro & Bloom, Intelligence of Moral
judgment?
Intuitions (pp. 193-196)
 How does this role interact with
Cushman et al, Role of Conscious Reasoning (pp.
reason?
1082-1089)
Week Four: Dual-Process Models and Politics
 Neuroscience as a way to understand Greene et al, An fMRI Investigation (pp. 21052108)
affect versus reason
Greene, Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul (pp. 35-117)
 Intentions versus consequences in
Cushman, Crime and Punishment (pp. 353-380)
moral judgments
DRAFT PROPOSAL DUE
Aristotle, Politics, Book VII (pp. 279-289)
Graham & Haidt, Liberals and Conservatives
 Moral beliefs underlying political
(pp. 1029-1046)
differences
Janoff-Bulmann et al, Mapping Moral Motives
 Motivational biases underlying
(pp. 1091-1099)
political differences
5
9
TBD
10
TBD
11
TBD
12
TBD
Week Five: Moral Agency and Motivation
Greene & Cohen, For the Law (pp. 1775-1785)
 Neuroscience against agency
Wegner, Illusion of Conscious Will, Chs. 1 & 9
 Behavioral arguments against free
(pp. 1-28; 317-342)
will
 The importance of the concept of free Vohs & Schooler, The Value of Believing in Free
Will (pp. 49-54)
will for morality
Mansbridge, Expanding the Range of Formal
 Why be moral at all?
Modeling (pp. 254-263)
 Can all morality be boiled down to
Baron, Nonconsequentialist Decisions (pp. 1-10)
rational self-interest?
Sen, Rational Fools (pp. 25-43)
 Should morality be boiled down to
rational self-interest?
Week Six: Person Versus Situation
Darley & Batson, From Jerusalem to Jericho (pp.
 Situational factors in determining
100-108)
behavior
Cialdini, Focus Theory of Normative Conduct
 Interpersonal dynamics and roles
(pp.1015-1026)
 Overjustification effects
Haney et al, Interpersonal Dynamics (pp. 69-97)
Kunda & Schwartz, Undermining Intrinsic
Motivation (pp. 763-771)
FINAL PAPER DUE
Mischel & Shoda, A Cognitive-Affective Theory of
Personality (pp. 246-268)
 Does “character” really exist?
Pizzaro & Tannenbaum, Bringing Back
 The role of character in judgment
Character (pp. 91-108)
 The role of character in motivation
Cornwell & Higgins, Beyond Right and Wrong
(pp. 1-58)
6
Complete List of References
Class 1:
Aristotle, trans. by Ross, W.D. (2009). Nichomachean Ethics. New York, NY: World Library
Classics. (Original work published c. 350 B.C.)
Kant, I. trans. by Ellington, J. (1993). Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Hackett
Publishing: New York, NY. (Original work published in 1785)
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Class 2:
Hume, D. (1998). An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. (Original work published in 1751).
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After virtue. South Bend, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Mill, J. S. (2007). Utilitarianism. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. (Original work published in
1863.)
Class 3:
Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York, NY:
Penguin Publishing.
Taylor, C. (1992). Sources of the Self: The Making of Modern Identity. Boston, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wilson, D.S. & Sober, E. (1999). Unto Others: The Evolution of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Class 4:
De Waal, F. (1996). Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Smith, C. (2007). Moral, Believing Animals: Human Personhood and Culture. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, USA.
Tomasello, M. (2009). Why We Cooperate. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Class 5:
Kohlberg, L., Levine, C., Hewer, A. (1983). Moral Stages: A current formulation and a response
to critics. Basel, NY: Karger.
Piaget, J. (2008). The Moral Judgment of the Child. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, LLC.
(Original work published in 1932.)
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
7
Class 6:
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral
judgment. Psychological Review. 108, 814-834
Pizarro, D.A. & Bloom, P. (2003). The intelligence of the moral intuitions: A comment on Haidt
(2001). Psychological Review 110(1): 193-196.
Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition
in Moral Judgment: Testing Three Principles of Harm. Psychological Science, 17(12),
1082-1089.
Class 7:
Cushman, F. (2008). Crime and punishment: Distinguishing the roles of causal and intentional
analyses in moral judgment. Cognition, 108, 353-380.
Greene, JD. (2007). The Secret Joke of Kant's Soul. In Sinnot-Armstrong, W. (Ed.) Moral
Psychology, Vol. 3: The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Disease, and Development.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Greene, J.D., Sommerville, R.B., Nystrom, L.E., Darley, J.M., & Cohen, J.D. (2001). An fMRI
Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science, 293(5537), 21052108.
Class 8:
Aristotle, trans. by Baker, E. (1958). Politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original
work published c. 350 B.C.)
Graham, J. & Haidt, J. (2009). Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Moral Foundations.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.
Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheik, S., & Baldacci, K.G. (2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach,
avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(4),
1091-1099.
Class 9:
Greene, J. & Cohen, J. (2004). For the law, neuroscience changes nothing and everything.
Philosophical Transcripts from The Royal Society of London, 359, 1775-1785.
Vohs, K.D. & Schooler, J.W. (2008). The Value of Believing in Free Will: Encouraging a Belief
in Determinism Increases Cheating. Psychological Science, 19(1), 49-54.
Wegner, D. (2002). The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Class 10:
Baron, J. (1994). Nonconsequentialist decisions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17(1), 1-10.
Mansbridge, J. (1990). Expanding the Range of Formal Modeling. In Jane J. Mansbridge (ed.)
Beyond Self Interest. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sen, A. K. (1978). Rational Fools. In Harris, D. (ed.), Scientific Models and Men. London, UK:
Oxford University Press.
8
Class 11:
Cialdini, R. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to
reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6),
1015-1026.
Darley, J. & Batson, C.D. (1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and
dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 27(1), 100-108.
Haney, C., Banks, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1973). Interpersonal dynamics in a simulated prison.
International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 1(1), 69-97.
Kunda, Z. & Schwartz, S. (1983). Undermining instrinsic moral motivation: External reward and
self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 763-771.
Class 12:
Cornwell, J.F. & Higgins, E.T. (2012). Beyond Right and Wrong: Virtue as Moral Motivation.
Perspectives in Psychological Science. Manuscript currently under review.
Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality
structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.
Pizarro, D.A. & Tannenbaum, D. (2011). Bringing character back: How the motivation to
evaluate character influences judgments of moral blame. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver
(Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil. APA
Press.
Additional Suggested Readings:
Crisp, R. (Ed.). (1996). How should one live?: Essays on the virtues. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
De Waal, F. (2009). The Age of Empathy: Nature’s Lessons for a Kinder Society. New York,
NY: Harmony House.
Haidt, J., & Kesebir, S. (2010). Morality. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.) Handbook
of Social Psychology, 5th Edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 797-832.
Hume, D. (2009). A Treatise of Human Nature. New York, NY: Merchant Books.
(Original work published in 1739).
Janoff-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Hepp, S. (2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality:
Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 521537.
Kohlberg, L. (1971.) From is to ought: How to commit the naturalistic fallacy and get away with it in the study of
moral development. In Mischel, T. (ed.), Cognitive Development and Psychology. New York: Academic
Press. 151-235.
Williams, B. (1986). Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. Boston, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Syllabus is subject to revision. Updates will be posted on CourseWorks.
9