What is morality
and how does it work?
Sage Lecture #1
Nov. 10, 2008
Jonathan Haidt
University of Virginia
6 Lectures on Morality
11/10: What is morality and how does it work?
11/17: The righteous mind: Why good people are divided
by politics and religion
11/24: The positive moral emotions: Elevation, awe,
admiration, and gratitude
12/1: Hive psychology, group selection, and leadership
12/8: The dark side: Why moral psychology is the greatest
source of evil
12/15: The light side: How to pursue happiness using
ancient wisdom and modern psychology
Morality is the best topic
1. One of oldest topics of inquiry
2. One of the most useful topics
--for relationships
--for social problems
3. One of the best linking topics
The ultimate goal of the center is both highly ambitious
and refreshingly simple: when you understand the
mind, you understand the human condition.
Magic trick #1
Where did the rabbit come
from?
1. Put into the hat from
outside, during the trick
2. Was in the hat all along
3. Was constructed in the
hat, by the hat
Magic trick #2
Where did Max’s morality
come from?
1. Put into Max from outside
(empiricism)
2. Was in Max all along
(nativism)
3. Was constructed in Max,
by Max (constructivism)
1. Empiricism
“The human intellect at
birth is rather like a tabula
rasa, a pure potentiality
that is actualized through
education...”
Avicenna, 11th C.
2. Nativism
Nature provides a first draft,
which experience then revises…
‘Built-in' does not mean
unmalleable; it means
organized in advance of
experience.“
(Marcus, 2004)
3. Constructivism
“Even if adults never interfered, the social relations subsisting
between children would perhaps be sufficient to create them.
The play of sympathy and antipathy is a sufficient cause for
practical reason to become conscious of reciprocity“
(Piaget, 1932)
Kohlberg’s Rationalist
Constructivism
Finish: Adult reaches understanding of
morality as justice (stage 5)
During childhood:
--experience helps cognitive skills unfold (a la Piaget)
--Role-taking leads to understanding of fairness
--Child constructs own morality
Start: no morality; egocentrism (Stages 1 and 2).
The Rationalist Model
“Affective forces are involved in moral
decisions, but affect is neither moral nor
immoral. When the affective arousal is
channeled into moral directions, it is moral;
when it is not so channeled, it is not. The moral
channeling mechanisms themselves are cognitive.“
(Kohlberg, 1971)
Eliciting
Situation
Affect
Reasoning
Judgment
The Rationalist Model
Key points:
1) The action in moral psych is in the study of
reasoning/justification
2) Little or no moral content is innate
3) Morality is about justice and rights, discovered
by thinking about harm and welfare.
Why I don’t believe it
David Hume: “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.”
(A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739)
Passion/
sentiment
Judgment
Reasoning
“There has been a controversy started of late ...
concerning the general foundation of Morals;
whether they be derived from Reason, or from
Sentiment; whether we attain the knowledge
of them by a chain of argument and induction,
or by an immediate feeling and finer internal sense;
whether, like all sound judgments of truth and
falsehood, they should be the same to every rational
intelligent being; or whether, like the perception of
beauty and deformity, they be founded entirely on the
particular fabric and constitution of the human species.”
(Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 1960/1777
Evidence for Humean Model: Interview Studies
A) Harmless taboo violations (Haidt, Koller, & Dias, 1993, JPSP).
B) Sexual morality (Haidt & Hersh, 2001, JASP)
C) Moral dumbfounding (Haidt, Bjorklund, & Murphy, in prep)
1) Moral reasoning: Heinz dilemma
2) Harmless taboo: Consensual adult sibling incest
3) Harmless taboo: Cannibalism of unclaimed corpse
4) Disgust dumbfounding: Sterile cockroach in juice
5) Superstitious dumbfounding: Selling your soul
Key question: Do P’s behave like scientists searching for
truth, or like lawyers searching for justifications?
I, _____________________,
hereby sell my soul, after my death,
to ___SCOTT MURPHY______,
for the sum of _____.
___________________
(signed)
Note: This form is part of a psychology experiment.
It is NOT a legal or binding contract, in any way.
“I agree [with that counterargument] and I respect that
opinion, but I’m afraid I’m not swaying on this topic. I just
feel too strongly against it.”
Results
On Heinz, it looks like people are reasoning:
--give reasons before giving judgment
--keep most of their arguments
--say they are relying on reason more than gut feeling
On harmless taboo stories, more dumbfounding:
--give judgment first, then reasons
--drop most of these reasons under cross-examination
--say they relied on “gut feeling” more than reasoning
--make more unsupported declarations (“it’s just wrong!”)
The Social Intuitionist Model (Haidt, 2001, Psych Review)
6
A’s Intuition
1
A’s Judgment
2
A’s Reasoning
5
4
B’s Reasoning
B’s Judgment
3
B’s Intuition
Four main processes:
1) the intuitive judgment link
Two rare processes:
2) the post-hoc reasoning link
5) the reasoned judgment link
3) the reasoned persuasion link
6) the private reflection link
4) the social persuasion link
Evidence for SIM: Inducing Extraneous Disgust
(Wheatley & Haidt, 2005, Psych Science)
Congressman Arnold Paxton frequently gives speeches
condemning corruption and arguing for campaign finance
reform. But he is just trying to cover up the fact that he
himself [will take bribes from] [is often bribed by] the tobacco
lobby to promote their legislation.
Bob was at a family gathering when he met Ellen, a second
cousin of his that he had never met before. Bob found Ellen
very attractive and he asked her out on a date. Ellen accepted
and they began to have a romantic and sexual relationship.
They [take] [often go on] weekend trips to romantic hotels in
the mountains.
Rate “how morally wrong is this?” and “How disgusting is this?”
Condemnation
Hypnotic disgust makes judgments more severe
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
*
**
Study 1 Study 1 Study 2 Study 2
n=64/45 DG
M
DG
M
NO dg
Hypno dg
Condemnation
Hypnotic disgust makes judgments more severe
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
*
*
**
**
Study 1 Study 1 Study 2 Study 2
n=64/45 DG
M
DG
M n=94/63
NO dg
Hypno dg
What if no condemnation is possible?
Dan is a student council representative at his school. He is in
charge of scheduling discussions about academic issues. He
[tries to take] <often picks> topics that appeal to both
professors and students in order to stimulate discussion.
Freq. of Moral Ratings, Disgust Present
Freq. of Moral Ratings, Disgust Absent
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
Mean = 2.75
Std. Dev. = 3.26173
0
N = 28
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mean = 13.6571
Std. Dev. = 19.3116
N = 35
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
“I don’t know, it just seems like he’s up to something.”
[Dan is a] “popularity seeking snob”
“I’m not sure, it just is.
Intuition tilts the table
Other means of “tilting the table”:
(Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008, PSPB)
Study 1
Study 2
Study 4
The Social Intuitionist Model
6
A’s Intuition
1
A’s Judgment
2
A’s Reasoning
5
4
B’s Reasoning
B’s Judgment
3
B’s Intuition
“I knew about ‘the word’ but it still disgusted me
anyway and affected my ratings. I would wonder
why and then make up a reason to be disgusted.”
Trends in PsycInfo Database
400
Growth (inflation adjusted)
350
300
250
Moral*
200
Moral* and reason*
Moral* and emotion*
150
100
50
0
1977-81
1982-86
1987-91
1992-96
1997-01
2002-06
The New Synthesis in Moral Psych
(Haidt, 2007, Science)
1) Intuitive primacy (but not dictatorship)
2) Moral thinking is for social doing
3) Morality binds and builds
4) Morality is about more than harm and
fairness
The New Synthesis in Moral Psych
1) Intuitive primacy (but not dictatorship)
2) Moral thinking is for social doing
3) Morality binds and builds
4) Morality is about more than harm and
fairness
The intuitive brain....
--Emotion areas are crucial for moral judgment
(Damasio; Greene)
--Neuroecon is largely the study of how emotional
reactions predict departures from econ rationality
(Sanfey et al., Rilling et al.)
--Psychopaths have an emotional deficit, not reasoning
or knowledge deficit (Hare; Cleckley; Blair; Kiehl)
--Chimps and 2 y.o. children show the emotional
building blocks of morality (de Waal; Wynn & Bloom)
The New Synthesis in Moral Psych
1) Intuitive primacy (but not dictatorship)
2) Moral thinking is for social doing
3) Morality binds and builds
4) Morality is about more than harm and
fairness
Functionalisms
Moral thinking is done in order to...
1. Feel good. (Intrapsychic functionalism: Freud,
Cialdini)
2. Find the truth. (Epistemic functionalism: Plato,
Kohlberg, rationalists)
3. Succeed socially. (Social-functionalism: Darwin,
Tooby, Cosmides, Dunbar)
--the “interpreter module” (Gazzaniga, 1985)
--the intuitive politician (Tetlock) and the
ubiquity of hypocrisy (Batson)
The New Synthesis in Moral Psych
1) Intuitive primacy (but not dictatorship)
2) Moral thinking is for social doing
3) Morality binds and builds
4) Morality is about more than harm and
fairness
3) Morality binds and builds
3) Morality binds and builds
Darwin: Morality was the Binder
A tribe including many members who, from
possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism,
fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were
always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice
themselves for the common good, would be
victorious over most other tribes; and this would be
natural selection. At all times throughout the world
tribes have supplanted other tribes; and … morality
is one important element in their success
--Descent of Man, Ch. V
The New Synthesis in Moral Psych
1) Intuitive primacy (but not dictatorship)
2) Moral thinking is for social doing
3) Morality binds and builds
4) Morality is about more than harm and
fairness
Morality is.....
“prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and
welfare pertaining to how people ought to
relate to each other.” (Turiel, 1983)
Morality is.....
“prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and
welfare pertaining to how people ought to
relate to each other.” (Turiel, 1983)
Harm/
Care
Morality is.....
“prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and
welfare pertaining to how people ought to
relate to each other.” (Turiel, 1983)
Harm/
Care
Fairness/
Justice
Morality as harm reduction:
“Morality is an informal public system applying to all
rational persons, governing behavior that affects
others, and has the lessening of evil or harm as its
goal.” (Gert, Stanford Encycl. of Phil.)
“If, as I believe, morality is a system of thinking
about (and maximizing) the well being of conscious
creatures like ourselves, many people's moral
concerns are frankly immoral.” (Harris, 2008)
1. Harm/care
2. Fairness/reciprocity
3. Ingroup/loyalty
4. Authority/respect
5. Purity/sanctity
Liberals 2 channels, Conservatives 5
Endorsement
Harm
Fairness
Authority
Ingroup
Purity
So.... What is morality?
“Moral systems are interlocking sets of values,
virtues, norms, practices, identities,
institutions, technologies, and evolved
psychological mechanisms that work together
to suppress or regulate selfishness and make
social life possible”
(Haidt, 2008, Perspectives on Psych Science)
And how does it work?
Key points:
1) The action in moral psych is in the study of
reasoning/justification
2) Little or no moral content is innate
3) Morality is about justice and rights, discovered
by thinking about harm and welfare.
“There has been a controversy started of late ...
concerning the general foundation of Morals;
whether they be derived from Reason, or from
Sentiment; whether we attain the knowledge
of them by a chain of argument and induction,
or by an immediate feeling and finer internal sense;
whether, like all sound judgments of truth and
falsehood, they should be the same to every rational
intelligent being; or whether, like the perception of
beauty and deformity, they be founded entirely on the
particular fabric and constitution of the human species.”
(Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, 1960/1777
Thank You
Mentors: Paul Rozin, Alan Fiske,
Richard Shweder, Dan Wegner
Collaborators: Thalia Wheatley,
Fredrik Bjorklund, Simone
Schnall, Pete Ditto, Jesse
Graham, Ravi Iyer, Sena Koleva
Papers available at
www.JonathanHaidt.com
Definitions of terms:
Moral Judgment: Evaluations (good vs. bad) of the actions or
character of a person that are made with respect to a set
of virtues held by a culture or subculture to be obligatory.
Moral Reasoning: Conscious mental activity that consists of
transforming given information about people in order to
reach a moral judgment.
Moral Intuition: The sudden appearance in consciousness, or
at the fringe of consciousness, of an evaluative feeling
(like-dislike, good-bad) about the character or actions of a
person, without any conscious awareness of having gone
through steps of search, weighing evidence, or inferring a
conclusion.