Is Mercy Killing Right and Are Atheist Good People - Literature review Example

Moral Judgement Name: Unit: Course: Professor name: Submission Date: Is mercy killing right? Are atheist good people? Moral judgement is the wrongness or rightness of a particular acts or policies (Lind, 2008).Many psychological researcher over decades face numerous questions with intensity on moral decision dilemma in measuring moral behavior and development among people, just like the above questions. Moral dilemma(s) refers to the conflicting choices where a person has to choose one or more action among others and give moral reasons for the choices made. When it comes to moral judgement people wonder whether there are some qualitative distinct inherent in moral judgements that make them distinct from other judgements? The answer to this question is yes. Why? From cross-cultural research despite the fact that such rules like “do no harm” are unanimously echoed in Western cultures for instance, more so among the liberals they are not endorsed universally (Waldmann, Nagel &Wiegmann, 2011). In making judgement in respect to moral dilemma cases, various researchers argue that the appropriate framework to evaluate moral judgement is the utilitarianism, and that those individuals using non-utilitarian framework (active versus passive harm) to solve moral dilemmas commit an error. In a survey it was found that those individuals who do support utilitarian solution scoredhigh on life meaningless, Machiavellianism and psychopathy measures. Therefore questioning the application of utilitarian model widely used to lay moral judgement. Therefore, the utilitarian model gives a counterintuitive moral judgement indicating that individual less susceptible to moral mistakes have inherent psychological traits which might be considered prototypically immoral (Bartels &Pizzaro, 2011). Although these findings were disputed by Columbia Business School, (2011) who did believe that Bartels &Pizzaro, (2011) failed to make a distinction between those utilitarian moral judges who make decision with underlying emotional deficits being the catalyzers and those who do so genuinely with great concern of other people’s welfare. For instance, a moral judge approves that one person would best die to save the lives of five lives, will be fine. Hence, a method should be able to distinguish between a utilitarian philosopher who does sacrifice his/her interests for others welfare and one whose feeling manipulates his/her decision for his/her own gain. Having this picture in mind, is good to define morality in respect to competence, intensity and conformity approaches that have been used in history to measure morality. Good-intention approach proposes person’s moral intentions is a fair rule both for morality and moral indicator if used, and terms conforming behaviour rule as a poor measure. That means a behaviour can only be termed as morally good only if based on morally good principles, motives, moral values or good intentions. Morally good intentions are both sufficient conditions and necessary for moral goodness. It assumes that naturally there is nothing good, except which arises from good will. Conformity in morality refers to the number of incidences a person did exhibit morally acceptable behaviour and did avoid the wrong behaviour depending on the culture (sub-cultures) on focus. This aspect holds the dos and don’ts in a given society. However, these instances are directly linked to a superhuman which remains impossible to abide by, though still in use. These two definitions on morality did define morality in regards to value or attitude, and in line with external social standards and norms. Following this gap, Kohlberg (1984) in Lind (2008) did come up with a third definition competence that fills in the gaps. Competence is the ability to make critical judgements and decisions which are moral in line with internal principles and take action as per such judgments. The definitions focuses on one’s judgement as a fundamental aspect making the behavioural, cognitive and affective aspects part of the definition unlike viewing them as isolated elements, which can be measured or observed separately. Therefore, to be moral, moral principles or moral ideals should guide the behaviour, but to be morally mature the guiding behaviour sphere ought to be informed by established reasoning competencies (Lind, 2008). From various psychology and cognitive science, emotion is a key contributor to the everyday judgement; moral judgement included. Myriads of moral judgement disciplines supports that emotion plays a significant aspect, although the extent and nature of this role remains debatable. There are three increasing claims regarding emotion role in moral judgement. The first claim holds that emotions arise from moral judgement. For instance witnessing immorality may trigger negative emotions, while witnessing moral virtue may result to positive ones. The second claim holds that emotions amplify moral judgements. For example, making immoral acts appear more immoral. The last claim, upholds that emotions are likely to moralize non-moral behaviours; meaning they may accord a moral status to a non-moral acts (Avramova & Inbar, 2013). But, then what is an emotion? And how does it differ from reason and intuition? This is imperative as many philosophers and psychologists are yet to agree whether moral judgements are as a result of emotion or reason or intuition. Emotion takes into the person’s feelings unlike using their thoughts. Reasoning implies using cognitive aspect to logically, and sensibly make a decision (Monin, Pizzaro& Beer, 2007). Intuition means being able to cognitively understand something immediately without application of reasoning; more of perception (Lias, 2010). From this compilation, there is a clear truth that moral judgement comes with moral dilemmas that psychologist and other researchers find themselves tangled in. Therefore, it is imperative that this research explores the significance of reason, intuition and emotion in moral judgments. To achieve this, the research did come up with four hypotheses. Lias, (2010) in reference to Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model (SIM) on moral judgement, often moral judgements are engineered through the intuitive process and the objective of reasoning is applied to provide a biased and post hoc justification. Understanding various aspects affecting moral judgement, this study did set out four hypotheses to explore the impact of intuition, reason and emotion in moral judgement. First hypotheses was that there will be a positive correlation between disgust propensity (DP) and MFQ_J_HARM. A positive correlation is also hypothesized between DP and MFQ_J_FAIRNESS while the third hypothesis asserts that there will be a positive correlation between DP and MFQ_J_INGROUP and finally, there will be a positive correlation between DP and MFQ_J_AUTHORITY. Methods Participants The study did enrol 596 university students participants of whom 151 (25.3%) were male and 445 (74.7%) men. The study subjects were recruited as part of a laboratory class from year two undergraduate psychology course. No payment given to the participants. Materials The participants were issued with a questionnaire to assess all variables via thread emails. Scales were provided to the participants in the following order. The study question was what guide your decision making process? Trait Anger (TA) which is a 10-item sub-scale. Responses were made on a scale of four points (4=almost always; 3=often; 2=sometimes; 1=almost never) in line with State-Trait Anger Scale. Participants were asked to respond to measures which anger them (e.g. I am a quick tempered). TA-10-item sub-scales assesses how often one experiences anger when unprovoked, when treated unjustly and when unfairly criticized (Forgays, Forgays & Spielberger, 2007). The second questionnaire was an 18-item sub-scale on Disgust Propensity (DP). The participants were asked to rate various measures on how often the participants’ experiences disgust which follows 5-point scale (5=always; 4=often; 3=sometimes; 2=rarely; 1=never) (Olatunji, Cisler, Deacon, Connolly &Lohr, 2007). The third questionnaire was made to help explore people’s agreement with Haidt’s five moral domain statements; Moral Foundations Questionnaire Judgement Subscales (MFQ_J) which were decomposed into five sub-scales: MFQ_J_PURITY; MFQ_J_AUTHORITY; MFQ_J_INGROUP; MFQ_J_FAIRENESS; MFQ_J_HARM. Using a 6 Linkert scale, the participants were asked questions which they did respond as either (6=strongly agree; 5=moderately agree; 4=slightly agree; 3=slightly disagree; 2= moderately disagree; or 1=strongly disagree) depending on how they endorse each of the five intuitive domains listed by Moral Foundations Theory: Purity/sanctity, Authority/respect/, Ingroup/loyalty, Fairness/reciprocity and Harm/care (Graham, Nosek, Haidt, Iyer, Kovela, & Ditto, 2011). Procedure With permission from the Tutor on the participant’s session, the participants were all presented with questionnaire in one of regular class tutorial session via email. The participants were presented with a personal invitation statement that did highlight the main objective of the study, expected study questions and the research importance to the University course. All participants were informed that the study remain voluntary to enrol, and one was free to adjourn at any point during the study. Participants were told to use anonymous names like letters for privacy purposes. Upon consenting to take up the research, within 90-minutes all questionnaires were completed and returned to the researcher’s email. Upon completion, all participants were served with a debriefing statement. Results The scores for the variables were obtained, and correlations drawn using descriptive statistics and scatter diagrams. The descriptive statistics were used to determine the correlations between disgust propensity (DP) and MFQ_J_HARM, MFQ_J_FAIRNESS, MFQ_J_INGROUP, and MFQ_J_AUTHORITY. Table 1 is the mean and standard deviations for the measures. To enhance the analysis, Pearson correlations tabulated as shown in Table 2. Table 1: Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Trait_Anger 596 1.00 3.40 1.8725 .44467 Trait_Disgust 596 1.38 4.50 2.7494 .51498 MFQ_Harm 596 1.00 6.00 4.6230 .85818 MFQ_Fairness 596 1.00 6.00 4.3406 .76778 MFQ_Ingroup 596 1.00 6.00 3.7075 .92421 MFQ_Authority 596 1.00 6.00 3.9396 .90071 Valid N (listwise) 596 Table 2: Correlations MFQ_Authority Trait_Disgust Pearson Correlation .114** Sig. (2-tailed) .005 N 596 MFQ_Harm Pearson Correlation .058 Sig. (2-tailed) .159 N 596 MFQ_Fairness Pearson Correlation .053 Sig. (2-tailed) .196 N 596 MFQ_Ingroup Pearson Correlation .539** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 596 MFQ_Authority Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N 596 As shown in tables 1 and 2, the analysis of the data showed that there was a positive correlation between propensity (DP) and the four key measures, i.e., MFQ_J_HARM, MFQ_J_FAIRNESS, MFQ_J_INGROUP, and MFQ_J_AUTHORITY. For the MFQ_J_HARM, MFQ_J_FAIRNESS, MFQ_J_INGROUP tests rs (596) = .159, .000 and .196 respectively, p>.001 which indicated positive correlation. From the standard deviations, it can be ascertained that despite the correlations, the results were skewed differently. This could be a pointer of variations based on the context of the tests. Discussion The study’s primary objective was to find out the significance of reason, intuition and emotion in moral judgment. This formed the basis of drawing the four hypotheses in which key study constructs were measured. As indicated in the results, the findings pointed out to a positive correlation in the four pairs that were being tested against the Disgust Propensity (DP). The findings are a pointer of the role played by intuition, emotion and reasoning in making a moral judgement. This implies that various factors come to play in the ethical decision-making process. As such, it can be inferred that the findings of the study are in line with Kohlberg (1984) in Lind (2008) who emphasised the implications of judgement as a fundamental aspect in which reasoning competencies inform morality. A case in point is the role of emotions in influencing judgment; Avramova and Inbar (2013) claim emotions play a critical role in moralising non-moral behaviours. It affirms the findings; i.e., DP is positively related to the various variables that are swayed by emotions. The fact that the four hypotheses are positive; it confirms that human beings act based on the context they find themselves in. It resonates, thus, with the Common Good Approach in which personal interactions form the basis of ethical reasoning. However, this does not discount the Utilitarian Approach which focuses on minimising harm and increasing the good things based on the position of the stakeholder as argued out by Bartel and Pizzaro (2011). By analysing the content of the Utilitarian model and the Common Good Approach, the findings become clear as they point to ways in which different factors influence the decision-making process and the eventual judgement. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the study was general and do not test the application of a specific approach or theory. As such, there is a need for future studies that focus on specific theories and decision-making models in order to have an explicit knowledge. In conclusion, the findings of the study provide a foundation for better understanding of the factors that underlay moral judgement. It also helps in adding to the body of knowledge which can be applied by psychologists in related areas of policymaking where the society faces ethical dilemmas. As inferred, future studies should be designed by focusing on specific ethical models to provide a conclusive analysis of reasoning, intuition and moral judgment. References Avramova, Y.R. &Inbar, Y. (2013). Emotions and moral judgement. ISIS Journal, 4(2):169-178. Bartels, D.M. &Pizzaro, D.A. (2011). The mismeasure of morals: antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121(1):154-161. Columbia Business School, (2011). Antisocial Personality Traits Predict Utilitarian Responses to Moral Dilemmas. Press Release, September, 2011. Retrieved on 8/21/17 from, https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/newsroom/newsn/1796/antisocial-personality-traits-predict-utilitarian-responses-to-moral-dilemmas. Forgays, D. G., Forgays, D. K., &Spielberger, C. D. (1997). Factor structure of the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 69, 497-507. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Kovela, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. Lias, S.M. (2010). Bias And Reasoning: Haidt’sTheory or Moral Judgment.NY University. Lind, G. (2008). Chapter 8: The Meaning and Measurement of Moral Judgement Competence. A Dual-Aspect Model.University of Konstanz Germany. Monin, B., Pizarro, D.A. & Beer, J.S. (2007). Reason and Emotion in Moral Judgement: Different Prototypes Lead to Different Theories. New York: Russel Sage Foundation https://static1.squarespace.com/static/4ff4905c84aee104c1f4f2c2/t/5084d810e4b0f4598aaa4482/1350883344051/Monin+Pizarro+Beer+2007+%5Bchapter%5D.pdf Olatunji, B.O., Cisler, J.M., Deacon, B.J., Connolly, K. &Lohr, J.M. (2007). The disgust propensity and sensitivity scale-revised: psychometric properties and specificity in relation to anxiety disorder symptoms. J Anxiety Disord, 21(7):918-930. Waldmann, M.R., Nagel, J. &Wiegmann, A. (2011). Chapter 19: Moral Judgement. Newgen. Read More

Hence, a method should be able to distinguish between a utilitarian philosopher who does sacrifice his/her interests for others welfare and one whose feeling manipulates his/her decision for his/her own gain. Having this picture in mind, is good to define morality in respect to competence, intensity and conformity approaches that have been used in history to measure morality. Good-intention approach proposes person’s moral intentions is a fair rule both for morality and moral indicator if used, and terms conforming behaviour rule as a poor measure.

That means a behaviour can only be termed as morally good only if based on morally good principles, motives, moral values or good intentions. Morally good intentions are both sufficient conditions and necessary for moral goodness. It assumes that naturally there is nothing good, except which arises from good will. Conformity in morality refers to the number of incidences a person did exhibit morally acceptable behaviour and did avoid the wrong behaviour depending on the culture (sub-cultures) on focus.

This aspect holds the dos and don’ts in a given society. However, these instances are directly linked to a superhuman which remains impossible to abide by, though still in use. These two definitions on morality did define morality in regards to value or attitude, and in line with external social standards and norms. Following this gap, Kohlberg (1984) in Lind (2008) did come up with a third definition competence that fills in the gaps. Competence is the ability to make critical judgements and decisions which are moral in line with internal principles and take action as per such judgments.

The definitions focuses on one’s judgement as a fundamental aspect making the behavioural, cognitive and affective aspects part of the definition unlike viewing them as isolated elements, which can be measured or observed separately. Therefore, to be moral, moral principles or moral ideals should guide the behaviour, but to be morally mature the guiding behaviour sphere ought to be informed by established reasoning competencies (Lind, 2008). From various psychology and cognitive science, emotion is a key contributor to the everyday judgement; moral judgement included.

Myriads of moral judgement disciplines supports that emotion plays a significant aspect, although the extent and nature of this role remains debatable. There are three increasing claims regarding emotion role in moral judgement. The first claim holds that emotions arise from moral judgement. For instance witnessing immorality may trigger negative emotions, while witnessing moral virtue may result to positive ones. The second claim holds that emotions amplify moral judgements. For example, making immoral acts appear more immoral.

The last claim, upholds that emotions are likely to moralize non-moral behaviours; meaning they may accord a moral status to a non-moral acts (Avramova & Inbar, 2013). But, then what is an emotion? And how does it differ from reason and intuition? This is imperative as many philosophers and psychologists are yet to agree whether moral judgements are as a result of emotion or reason or intuition. Emotion takes into the person’s feelings unlike using their thoughts. Reasoning implies using cognitive aspect to logically, and sensibly make a decision (Monin, Pizzaro& Beer, 2007).

Intuition means being able to cognitively understand something immediately without application of reasoning; more of perception (Lias, 2010). From this compilation, there is a clear truth that moral judgement comes with moral dilemmas that psychologist and other researchers find themselves tangled in. Therefore, it is imperative that this research explores the significance of reason, intuition and emotion in moral judgments. To achieve this, the research did come up with four hypotheses. Lias, (2010) in reference to Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model (SIM) on moral judgement, often moral judgements are engineered through the intuitive process and the objective of reasoning is applied to provide a biased and post hoc justification.

Read More