Summary of:
Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends In
Cognitive Sciences, 11(4), 143-152. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.007
Summary by Katie Patterson, Charlotte Haun, and Liz Perez
For Dr. Mills’ Psyc 452 Class, Fall 2011
In this article, John Mikhail investigates the origins and nature of human moral cognition.
More specifically, Mikhail links the study of human morality to Noam Chomsky’s studies of
linguistics. Just as Chomsky proposed a Universal Grammar that is innate in all humans,
Mikhail postulates that humans also contain a Universal Moral Grammar (UMG). This suggests
that humans are born with the ability to make moral decisions. This is yet another topic in the
nature versus nurture debate. Although we may acquire morals from our environment, a
Universal Moral Grammar suggests that we are born with an ability to distinguish between moral
and immoral actions.
The UMG approach is centered around 5 main questions (Box 1). Each of these
questions has a direct parallel to Chomsky’s studies in linguistics, enabling Mikhail to draw upon
Chomsky’s conclusions and propose similar explanations for morality.
The main focus of investigation for UMG is how computational theory functions to
enable humans to make moral decisions. Mikhail posits that computational theory is essential in
developing a hard scientific theory of moral cognition. There should be less focus on the
neurophysiological mechanisms of morality and more on computational theory. Essentially, we
must first know how our moral competence functions and later examine where/what systems
accomplish it.
Mikhail gives evidence for the existence of UMG and support for why it should be
investigated further. Studies on morality have been conducted in young children showing that
they have complex intuitive moral codes that are highly similar to sophisticated legal codes.
They are able to determine a moral act from an immoral one on the basis of intent or purpose.
Also, further evidence for an innate moral system can be seen in the fact that every language
contains words or phrases expressing moral concepts such as permissible, forbidden, and
obligatory. There is also preliminary research giving support for a consistent network of brain
regions involved in moral cognition.
The UMG approach makes two main arguments. The first is the argument for moral
grammar, which posits that the human mind contains a moral grammar that is a “complex set of
rules, concepts and principles that generates and relates mental representations of various types”
(Mikhail, 2007, pg 144). Secondly, the argument from the poverty of the moral stimulus reasons
that the way in which we acquire moral grammar gives evidence for at least some of its core
attributes to be innate.
Trolley problems are used to examine the way humans decide on the morality of a
situation. These scenarios involve making a decision to harm one or more individuals in order to
save a larger number of individuals. These are useful to examine because the decisions made are
often “rapid, intuitive, and made with a high degree of certitude,” (Mikhail, 2007, pg 144). Also,
studies have shown that judgments made in these scenarios tend to be shared across many
demographics. Furthermore, people tend to have difficulty giving a rationale for the moral
judgments they make, therefore implying an automatic and unconscious mechanism for these
decisions.
Trolley problems suggest that there is a pattern of organization that the mind follows in
making a judgment. There are three elements that are essential to this model and are applied to
the scenarios. The first are the “deontic” rules of the prohibition of intentional battery and the
principle of double effect. This means that in judging an act in terms of morality, humans
consider if a person is being intentionally harmed as well as whether the intent was for a good or
bad effect. The second element of our model of morality in trolley problems is the structural
descriptions of the scenario. Humans unconsciously compute structural descriptions of the
actions, allowing them to assess the means and the ends of an action. Finally, conversion rules
are essential to the pattern of organization that humans use for these scenarios. It is clear that
humans use tacit conversion rules to compute scenarios in terms of ends, means, and side effects,
even when there is no direct reference to these properties. Computers are able to determine these
properties through a number of very lengthy and complex mechanical steps. However, humans
complete these steps automatically and mostly unknowingly, lending support to the idea of an
innate moral mechanism that performs these algorithms.
In his approach to innate human morality, Mikhail aims to show that UMG can be
examined through precise formal analysis in order to reveal the nature of moral cognition.
Beginning efforts through trolley problems have shown that humans are capable of making
intuitive moral distinctions between very similar scenarios. Future research should continue to
investigate morality through legal theory in order to more fully understand the computational
theories of moral competence.
Box 1.
Five main questions of universal moral grammar
•
•
•
•
•
What constitutes moral knowledge?
How is moral knowledge acquired?
How is moral knowledge put to use?
How is moral knowledge physically realized in the brain?
How did moral knowledge evolve in the species?
Adapted from Mikhail, 2007, pg. 144
QuickTime™ and a
decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Adapted from Mikhail, 2007, pg. 146
Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future
A: INTRODUCTION AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH
1. Noam Chomsky’s studies of linguistics and supposition of an innate a “Universal
Grammar” led to Mikhail (2007) research on a Universal Moral Grammar.
2. Mikhail (2007) parallels his argument for the existence of a UMG with that of
Chomsky’s language development research.
3. Universal Moral Grammar suggests that we are born with an ability to distinguish
between moral and immoral actions.
B: HYPOTHESES
1. Mikhail (2007) suggested that there exists a Universal Moral Grammar evidenced
from multiple studies on the morality of children
o complex intuitive moral codes
o similar to sophisticated legal codes
o Determination of intent
o Declaration of act as immoral/moral
2. Computational theory is essential in developing a hard scientific theory of moral
cognition. There should be less focus on the neuro-physiological mechanisms of
morality and more on computational theory
C: ARGUMENTS
1. UMG approach is centered around 5 main questions
o What constitutes moral knowledge?
o How is moral knowledge acquired?
o How is moral knowledge put to use?
o How is moral knowledge is physically realized in the brain?
o How did moral knowledge evolve in the species?
2. UMG consists of two focal arguments
o Moral grammar: The human mind contains a moral grammar that is a
complex set of rules, concepts and principles that generate and relate to
mental representations
o Deficiency of moral stimulation: The way in which we acquire moral
grammar gives evidence for at least a partial biological correlate.
3. Trolley Problems
o Decisions to harm one or more individuals in order to save a larger number
of individuals are often automatic and with great certitude.
o Process of reasoning:
a) Deontic rules of intentionality
i. Prohibition of intentional battery
ii. Principle of double effect
b) Structural descriptions of scenario
c) Tactical conversion rules
i. Means
ii. Ends
iii. Side Effects
D: CONCLUSION FUTURE RESEARCH
1. From Birth:
o Children’s innate ability to distinguish the cooperators from the defectors.
2. Intuitive Adulthood:
o Adult’s ability to make intuitive moral distinctions between very similar
scenarios which a great degree of conviction. The differentiation between
scenarios occurs without concrete reason for why such a distinction is right or
moral.
E: FUTURE RESEARCH
1. Legal Theory: Identify the computational theories of moral competence to better
understand and examine morality.
Test Questions
1. Which are essential elements to the model of a Universal Moral Grammar?
A. Deontic Rules
B. Structural Description
C. Conversion Rules
D. All of the above
2. The concept of a Universal Moral Grammar suggests
A. Everyone has the same morals
B. Humans have an innate ability to distinguish between moral and immoral actions
C. Humans learn morals strictly through their environment (nurture)
D. None of the above
3. Trolley problems are suggestive of a Universal Moral Grammar because people tend to give
answers that are
A. Always moral
B. Rapid, intuitive, and made with a high degree of certitude
C. Formulated after a good amount of thought
D. Diverse across demographics
4. The concept of a Universal Moral Grammar is a parallel to Noam Chomsky’s Universal
Grammar. True or False?
5. The neurophysiology of morality should be studied before attempting to understand
computational theories of morality. True or False?
6. Young children tend to have complex intuitive moral codes that are similar to sophisticated
legal codes. True or False?
Answer Key
1. D
2. B
3. B
4. True
5. False
6. True