![]() Moral judgments can be understood in this framework because they are not only private but are frequently communicated to other people. Models of the evolution of communication show that signalling occurs when both senders and receivers benefit, on average, from exchanging messages. The benefits of coordination can explain why a receiver, even an adversary, pays attention to an individual's moral judgments. In short, strategic moral judgment favours rules that benefit oneself, subject to the constraints of coordination-the rules must be ones that at least some other group members might also support. For instance, people might prefer rules that are psychologically salient to capture other people's attention, and impartial, applying to everyone independent of their identity, because these characteristics facilitate coordination. The need for coordination implies that people seek moral rules which, in addition to being self-serving, other people will find persuasive. If, however, moral judgment has an element of coordination-both sides benefit from agreement in addition to their payoffs for each choice itself-then there is room for negotiation. If it were, then there would be no room for debate because attempts to change other people's moral judgments would be futile. Importantly, the strategic account does not hold that moral judgment is the same as expressing self-interest. From a biological perspective, these elaborate efforts are wasted if they are not tied to the consequences of different rules. Moreover, people believe their own moral judgments are universal and objective, and they try to persuade dissenters to switch to their moral views. This might be why people experience moral debates as so compelling and emotionally provocative. Natural selection might have favoured cognitive adaptations for advocating rules that enhance the individual's fitness. That is, a panoply of moral rules with differential effects is part of the enduring social ecology of Homo sapiens. Inevitably, some rules will benefit some people more than others. Human societies have many moral rules and new ones are frequently invented. However, evolutionary theories give reasons to suspect that moral judgment is routinely strategic. Indeed, political scientists argue that most people do not systematically advocate policies that benefit them (, but see ). But, it is unknown whether strategic advocacy occurs only in exceptional circumstances or is part of the routine operation of moral judgment. Some merchants used these contracts to gain wealth and power, and then sought to criminalize them to prevent others from achieving the same success. Robinson & Acemoglu discuss a type of limited-liability contract, the commenda, devised in mediaeval Venice to finance maritime trade. History is replete with similar examples. To take a modern example, prohibitions against copying music and movies have different effects on producers and consumers, explaining why they judge copying as stealing or sharing, respectively. Many moral rules have different consequences for different groups of people in society. 61–62).Īnother potential source of moral disagreement is self-interest. In the realm of fairness, Lakoff argued that ‘conservatives and liberals agree that Moral Action Is Fair Distribution, but they disagree strongly about what counts as fair distribution’ (pp. Similarly, Lakoff argued that liberals and conservatives emphasize different metaphors for society (nurturant parent or strict father) which leads to conflicting judgments. Relevant to the present studies, Haidt reports that liberals prioritize equality of outcomes over equity-proportionality between inputs and benefits, whereas conservatives show the reverse pattern. In turn, ideology is connected to moral judgment: liberals focus on harm, liberty and fairness, whereas conservatives give greater weight to authority, loyalty and purity. For instance, liberalism is associated with openness to experience, whereas conservatism is associated with fear of change. Haidt reviewed evidence that differences in personality and genes are correlated with liberal and conservative ideology. ![]() Previous research emphasizes dispositions as a source of moral disagreement. And they disagree about which rules take priority such as whether altruism justifies dishonesty. They disagree about which rules apply such as whether progressive taxation is stealing or abortion is murder. They disagree about which rules are valid such as whether contraception or interest-bearing loans are morally wrong. ![]() People frequently disagree about morality. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |