* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download ILA Powerpoint - Society for Personality and Social Psychology
Paleoconservatism wikipedia , lookup
Sexual ethics wikipedia , lookup
Cosmopolitanism wikipedia , lookup
Internalism and externalism wikipedia , lookup
Compliance and ethics program wikipedia , lookup
Virtue ethics wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of eating meat wikipedia , lookup
J. Baird Callicott wikipedia , lookup
Utilitarianism wikipedia , lookup
Divine command theory wikipedia , lookup
Business ethics wikipedia , lookup
Arthur Schafer wikipedia , lookup
Kantian ethics wikipedia , lookup
The Sovereignty of Good wikipedia , lookup
Bernard Williams wikipedia , lookup
Individualism wikipedia , lookup
The Moral Landscape wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg wikipedia , lookup
Alasdair MacIntyre wikipedia , lookup
Ethics of artificial intelligence wikipedia , lookup
Cultural relativism wikipedia , lookup
Ethics in religion wikipedia , lookup
Ethical intuitionism wikipedia , lookup
Consequentialism wikipedia , lookup
Moral disengagement wikipedia , lookup
Critique of Practical Reason wikipedia , lookup
Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development wikipedia , lookup
Moral development wikipedia , lookup
Morality and religion wikipedia , lookup
Morality throughout the Life Span wikipedia , lookup
Moral responsibility wikipedia , lookup
Thomas Hill Green wikipedia , lookup
Ethics Position Theory: Morality, Politics, and Happiness Don Forsyth University of Richmond Philosophical Study of Ethics Normative ethics • Right vs. wrong • Good vs. evil • What you should do? • How should we make moral decisions? Philosophical analyses: • Deontology • Egoism • Teleology • Relativism • Justice Psychological Study of Ethics Descriptive ethics • 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 • Individual differences • Moral development • 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 Individual Differences in Morality • 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 Moral Philosophies Moral Position (or philosophy): • an individual’s organized set of beliefs and values pertaining to ethics • individuals are intuitive “moral philosophers” Example: From the great philosopher, Calvin Great variation, but 2 themes 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). Second theme 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”) First Theme: Principles Universalism • Follow the rules • Stick to your principles • Do what is right • Don’t do what is wrong Relativism • Tolerate differences • Don’t expect others to act as you do • Rules, and morality, change over time • No rule is sacred Second Theme: Consequences Idealism • Do no harm • Promote others’ welfare • Do not weigh ends against the means Consequentialism • Trade-offs are unavoidable • Weigh the good against the bad • Calculate costbenefit ratio and choose rationally These 2 themes, or dimensions, emerged across a number of studies of individual differences in moral judgment The Ethics Position Questionnaire Measuring Relativism 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 full question has 20 questions, rather than just these 6 The Ethics Position Questionnaire Measuring Idealism 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. Relativism 3 Low Relativism 9.3 Relativism: Some personal moral codes emphasize the importance of universal ethical rules; others do not endorse universal principles 15 High Relativism Idealism 3 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. 10.5 15 High Idealism Dimensions vs. Types • 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 High Relativism Subjectivist Situationist Low Idealism High Idealism Exceptionist Absolutist Low Relativism Four Ethical Ideologies Relativism High Subjectivist Situationist Appraisals based on personal values and perspective rather than universal principles 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 Low Absolutist Assumes that the best possible outcome can always be achieved by following universal moral rules High Idealism Studies of the “Moral mind” 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 Example: Judgments of Research Procedures 9 How Unethical 8 7 6 5 4 Situationists 3 Subjectivists 2 Exceptionists 1 Absolutists 0 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 Reaction Time 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…. Self-ratings 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 Level of Happiness 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 Selfsacrifice Kindness Fairness Harm Recipr. Reverence Respect 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. Moral debates in contemporary society Liberals Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity Example: Health Care Reform Compassion Harm Equal rights Recipr. Unfair Outsiders Served Ingroup Profession Harmed Hierar. Unhealthy Purity Example: Marriage Rights for Gays Compassion Harm Equal rights Recipr. Heterosexism Ingroup Against God + tradition 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), 366385. 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 Liberal ----- Conservative Values Implications and Future Directions In Sum Personal Moral Philosophies Relativism Idealism Universalism Consequentialism Thank you!