by Ali-Asad
Psychologists, anthropologists and ethicists have developed a comprehensive understanding of morality over the last century. The fundamental question underpinning this research has been: how do we define morality?
Initially, morality was defined with only the individual in mind. Psychologist Lawrence Kholberg theorized that morality was based on the protection of individual rights i.e. what's equal is moral and inequality is immoral; keyword: reciprocity - the justice/fairness moral conception. Later, Carol Gilligan thought that this justice/fairness foundation was too harsh, especially for the female psyche. She theorized that morality was more based on the avoidance of harm i.e. if something inflicts harm, it's immoral. This parallels the maternal instinct; keywords: protection, compassion - the harm/care moral conception. These two moral foundations of justice/fairness and harm/care can be considered as the ethics of the individual. But this isn't the whole story. Anthropologists found that more traditional societies had other moral senses, which often conflicted with the ethics of the individual.
In more traditional societies, the primary unit of society is not the individual but the family, tribe or country. Therefore, individual rights are not as important as protecting the group. This different focus gives rise to different moral foundations. Firstly, this group preeminence requires individuals to favor their own group over other groups i.e. what my group does has to be right as compared to other groups; keywords: loyalty, patriotism - the ingroup/outgroup moral conception. Secondly, all groups require a structure of authority to function. The group can only function if this hierarchy is strictly obeyed otherwise the whole group fabric will crumble i.e., an elder must be obeyed no matter what; keywords: respect, duty - the authority/respect moral foundation. These two moral foundations of ingroup/outgroup and authority/respect can be considered as the ethics of the community.
Now, for many people, divinely revealed laws serve as a moral foundation. Here, the primary unit is the soul, which God has gifted to everyone. Therefore, morality involves the protection and purification of this soul through protecting the body with certain dietary, sexual etc. regulations. Also, this foundations promotes health by using shame/disgust to avoid risky behavior; keywords: chastity, shame - the purity/sanctity moral foundation. This moral foundation is considered as the ethics of divinity.
So, we've established 5 foundations of morality:
- justice/fairness - protection of individual rights
- harm/care - maternal instinct of nurture, protection, and avoidance of harm
- ingroup/outgroup - favoring one's own group over other groups
- authority/respect - adherence to hierarchy
- purity/sanctity - avoidance of health risks through shame and disgust/adhering to God's laws
Interestingly, empirical research has found that your moral foundations can accurately indicate your political views. Political liberals identify primarily with the ethics of the individual foundations (justice/fairness and harm/care) while not having any sense for the other 3 moral foundations. On the other hand, political conservatives value the ethics of the individual as well but also include the ethics of community and divinity in their moral compass. So, political conservatives tend to have a broader view of morality in that they deal with moral issues for the perspective of God and community, as well as the individual.
These researchers have set up a great website called yourmorals.org, where you can take a quiz to determine your moral foundations. My results from the moral foundation questionnaire are below:
A couple of things stand out here: I score high on one of the three values political conservatives share. Also, I do value the universal ethics of the individual but value justice/fairness quite highly and value the harm/care foundation quite a bit lower than average.
And that's jus' the tip.
5 comments:
I really enjoyed comparing these moral conceptions. I situate my morality decidedly in what is referred to here as the "ethics of the individual," most accurately reflected in Carol Gilligan's conception of a "maternal" moral conception.
I am more than comfortable with a relativist perspective of morality, and in my view, nobility of intention and also the effect of an action upon those affected are controls for vastly-divergent cultural conceptions of what actions are morally right.
I was surprised though, in that I found some of the moral foundations to be actually insolubly contradictory to my own. For example, in the case of the ingroup/outgroup paradigm, I am very uncomfortable with supporting a group's destructive, cruel, or belligerent behavior solely on the basis that I am a part of that group. Does this model justify pre-emptive war to protect the "chosen people" that one is a part of? This seems to be "realist" political theory without a hegemon, just self-interested parties exploiting others for their own gain.
I understand that moral codes and conceptions will differ, however, I did at least think that while people define things differently (i.e. what is moral is "fair" as opposed to "caring") all of these definitions would at least have positive connotations.
I understand that different societies at different times will have inconsistent laws, that is nothing particularly unsettling or morally objectionable. I do, however, have a hard time accepting the fundamental bases of the 3rd and 4th foundations. Does this mean that my outlook is only a narrow relativism that encompasses only positions similar to my own? I understand people define morality differently but I didn't expect people to define actions on such vastly incompatible presuppositions as compared to my own.
john, I think you just demonstrated why it's so important to understand these different moral conceptions. when you say you could never support a group's cruel actions just because you belonged to that group, you've got it backwards. For those who possess the ingroup/ourgroup moral sensibility, whatever their group does is, by definition, right and moral. I think only be understanding and speaking in the language of community ethics could you have a chance of influencing group behavior. For example, look at how some anti-war demonstrators say that 'dissent is patriotic' - John Kerry's Vietnam war protest slogan 'absolutely my country right or wrong when right keep it right, when wrong make it right'
Also, I'm sure you do share some sensibilities on ingroup/outgroup and authority/respect. you did vote in the recent election. that's a basic submission to the current political structure which is heirarchical. So, I think all those moral foundations are valid on some level. And I don't think anyone's moral conceptions are changeable or persuadable.
Conservatives here in the US as well as in the Middle East have given #5 a bad name, but it is the basis from which codified law has sprung.
It is also the basis for 1, 2 and
4. Who says what's just or fair, or what is harmful if not God? Without God, somebody has to set the rules, and on what authority do they set them?
#3 is an anthropological truism: People are hard-wired to prefer their own kind.
Great article!
foutsc, you would agree that whatever morals we have, they're God-given. So, I could argue, rather than something being just/caring because God said so, that something would be just/caring because our moral sensibilities say so. And those moral sensibilities come from God. I think that logic works better because even those whose moral conceptions are not God-centered still can have #1 through #4.
'God said so' may be the only way to defend morals stemming from #5. but conservatives get into trouble trying to use 'God said so' when defending #1 through #4.
good points though.
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Kaylee
http://www.thinkpadonline.info
Post a Comment