Ethicists have known for centuries human beings have radically different views of morality. The general discussion has been over which is the “one-true” morality and which are the “false” moralities, and then how to rationally use the one “true” morality to solve all ethical conundrums. For the last few decades, based heavily on the findings of social psychology and more recently of neuro-psychology, a number of scholars have been explaining the variety of moralities on the basis of the intrinsic workings of the human brain. According to these scholars the reason humans have multiple moralities is because the human brain is wired for multiple moralities and human beings apply these moralities in different ways under different social conditions.
Over the last few decades scholars have proposed that there are four (Fiske), five (Bolender), or even six (Haidt) fundamental moralities built into human existence. Each morality is expressed in profoundly different ways. In any specific case, human beings appear to zoom between moralities, spinning out complex combinations, in order to resolve specific moral problems. Of course cultural conditions are immensely contributive to the way any specific individual or group uses these fundamental moralities. The final moral content is always cultural.
No one is certain how these moralities function, whether they are completely neural in origin (intrinsic brain patterns), or how they might most effectively be used to understand moral behaviour. What is certain is human beings do use different moralities and when using them tend to see any other morality as immoral in relation to the issue at hand. These moral perceptions are also primarily emotional—satisfaction or disgust—with a range of intensities. The raises the question of the role of reason and consciousness in moral decision making. The conclusion of many studies is that human beings are not morally persuaded by reason but by the resolution of personal emotional responses to action alternatives. The role of reason is first to justify pre-existing emotional responses, and secondarily to dig individuals out of serious problems once they fail to justify their emotional responses (Kahneman, Gigerenzer, Haidt).
Comments