Ethics Position Theory:  Morality, Politics, and

HappinessDon Forsyth

University of Richmond

Philosophical Study of Ethics

• Right vs. wrong• Good vs. evil• What you should

do?• How should we

make moral decisions?

• Egoism• Relativism• Justice

Philosophical analyses: • Deontology• Teleology

Normative ethics

Psychological Study of Ethics

• Individual differences• Cross-cultural variations• Values, virtues,

character

Scientific analyses: • Moral judgment• Moral development

Descriptive ethics

• How do people decide what is right vs. wrong?

• When (and why) do people act in ways that are morally questionable?

• 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

“Reasonable people disagree…”

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

• Tolerate differences • Don’t expect others

to act as you do• Rules, and

morality, change over time

• No rule is sacred

Universalism

• Follow the rules

• Stick to your principles

• Do what is right

• Don’t do what is wrong

Relativism

Second Theme: Consequences

• Trade-offs are unavoidable

• Weigh the good against the bad

• Calculate cost-benefit ratio and choose rationally

Idealism

• Do no harm• Promote others’

welfare• Do not weigh

ends against the means

Consequentialism

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

se 2

them

es, o

r di

men

sion

s, e

mer

ged

acro

ss a

num

ber

of

stud

ies

of in

divi

dual

dif

fere

nces

in m

oral

judg

men

t

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.

The

ful

l que

stio

n ha

s 20

que

stio

ns, r

athe

r th

an ju

st th

ese

6

Relativism

Relativism: Some personal moral codes emphasize the importance of universal ethical rules; others do not endorse universal principles

Low Relativism

High Relativism

3 159.3

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.

Low Idealism

High Idealism

3 1510.5

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

LowIdealism

HighIdealism

HighRelativism

LowRelativism

Situationist

AbsolutistExceptionist

Subjectivist

Four Ethical Ideologies

Subjectivist Situationist

Exceptionist Absolutist

Idealism

Rela

tivis

m

Low

High

High

Appraisals based on personal values and perspective rather

than universal principles

Rejects moral rules; advocates

individualistic analysis of each act in each

situation

Moral absolutes guide judgments but

pragmatically open to exceptions to these standards; utilitarian

Assumes that the best possible outcome can always be achieved

by following universal moral rules

Do people with different moral philosophies “think about” morality differently?

Studies of the “Moral mind”

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

Borin

g Ta

sk

Prison

Stu

dy

Bogu

s Fe

edba

ck

Subw

ay

Relig

ious

Bel

iefs

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

SituationistsSubjectivistsExceptionistsAbsolutists

How

Un

eth

ical

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

Exc

Sub

Abs

Sit

React

ion T

ime

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….

Exce

ptio

nist

s

Subj

ectiv

ists

Situ

atio

nist

s

Abso

lutis

ts0

1

2

3

4

5

Self-

rati

ngs

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”.

Absolutist Situationist Subjectivist Exceptionist0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Lev

el o

f H

app

ines

s

How about politics?

Are the differences between conservative and liberal views rooted in moral differences?

Jon Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory

Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity

Kindness

Fairness

Self-sacrifice

Respect

Reverence

Moral debates in contemporary society

Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity

Conservatives

Conservatives and most traditional societies (esp. agricultural) build on all five foundations, create a broad morality. Regulates most action; values tradition.

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

Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity

Liberals

Liberals and more mobile, mercantile societies hyper-value harm and reciprocity; distrust and overrule hierarchy, purity, and sometimes in-group. Create a narrow morality, values autonomy, rights, and self-expression.

Liberals and more mobile, mercantile societies hyper-value harm and reciprocity; distrust and overrule hierarchy, purity, and sometimes in-group. Create a narrow morality, values autonomy, rights, and self-expression.

Example: Health Care Reform

Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity

CompassionEqual rights

UnfairOutsidersServed Profession

Harmed Unhealthy

Example: Marriage Rights for Gays

Harm Recipr. Ingroup Hierar. Purity

CompassionEqual rights Heterosexism Against God

+ tradition Sin, perversion

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), 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847

Haidt and his colleagues find some suggestive evidence of two clusters—is one of these idealism, the other relativism?

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

Lib

era

l -

----

C

onse

rvati

ve V

alu

es

Implications and Future Directions

In SumPersonal MoralPhilosophies

Relativism

Universalism

Idealism

Consequentialism

Thank you!