The Psychology of Moral Decisions

 Imagine taking a walk through your local shopping mall (if such places still exist). You happen to be looking at the floor as you walk, when you notice a wallet lying on the ground. You pick it up and decide  to take it to the nearby security office. Why didn't you open the wallet and take the money inside?  

If you have been in a similar situation, you have made a moral decision. We base these decisions on our perceptions of morality. Morality refers to a system of principles that governs which decisions and actions are considered right or wrong, acting as a guide for the individuals and society. 

It is obvious to say that returning the wallet to the security office was the "right" decision, and stealing the money was the "wrong" decision. But what is "right," and what is "wrong," and how do we decide? Moral philosophy ponders what decisions we should make, whereas moral psychology focuses on how we make those decisions. This post will focus on how we make moral decisions, including insights from dual-process theory and social and emotional influences. 

I. Two Systems of Thinking

To begin, let us consider dual-process theory, developed by Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky. There are two main systems of thinking: 

- System 1: Intuitive/Automatic 

- System 2: Analytical/Deliberate

System 1 operates quickly and intuitively, drawing on experiences and associations to make decisions. Kahneman describes this as "fast thinking," as it relies heavily on heuristics (shortcuts). 

System 2 is slower, more effortful, and uses reason and logic. This system can be more accurate but tends to take more time. System 1 prevails more often because System 2 needs more time.  

How does this relate to moral decisions? 

Our moral compass is not always guided by careful deliberation. Jonathan Haidt is a social psychologist known for developing the social intuitionist model. The model proposes that moral judgments are made quickly, driven by affective intuitions. 

Joshua Greene, a psychologist, neuroscientist, and philosopher has done extensive work in understanding moral judgment and decision-making. He also utilized dual-process theory to understand how we approach moral decisions. 

His 2001 study provided initial neuroscience evidence for how our brain responds to various moral dilemmas. The study found that personal moral dilemmas (direct harm done to another person) elicited activity in areas that are associated with emotion and social thinking. For impersonal dilemmas  were the harm is indirect), brain areas associated with working memory and cognitive control were activated. Impersonal dilemmas may be influenced by a process called "cost-benefit analysis." In this process, the person weighs the advantages and disadvantages of making a choice. This could exemplify System 2 in dual-process theory. 

Having discussed dual-process theory and neuroscience evidence, attention will be turned to the social and emotional influences on morality. 

II. Social & Emotional Influences on Moral Decisions

Societal rules and expectations shape our understanding of morality. Societies develop and transmit norms - the unwritten rules for behavior largely considered to be acceptable or expected in various situations. These often reflect core values such as honesty, fairness, and respect.

 From a young age, we are socialized by our family, education, and community. Over time, through repeated exposure and reinforcement, these norms become an intrinsic part of our personal belief system. We do certain things because they feel like the "right" thing to do, remaining consistent to our deeply held and societally shaped values. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development also presents a fascinating theory of moral development. 

Emotions also influence our moral decisions. Specifically, guilt and empathy can motivate or inhibit our actions. 

Guilt can arise when we believe that we have violated our internal moral standards or societal norms. This feeling can motivate us to take actions to repair any harm we have caused. Such actions include apologizing or correcting our behavior for the future. Guilt can also inhibit our actions when we perceive that they may bring feelings of remorse or self-reproach. This aversion to feeling guilt can prevent us from engaging in behaviors we know are harmful. 

Empathy refers to the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. It can be a profound motivator for prosocial behavior. When we empathize with someone, we often feel motivated to comfort them and attempt to alleviate their suffering. Empathy can also inhibit actions that can cause harm or distress to others. When we imagine the impact our actions has on others, we may be less likely to engage in behavior that could lead to their suffering. 

III. Conclusion

In summary, a complex interplay of thinking systems that contribute to moral decision making. There are two broad systems. System 1 operates quickly, based on intuition. System 2 takes longer, relying on reason and logic to think through decisions. There are also social and emotional influences on moral decisions. Specifically, guilt and empathy can be powerful emotions in moral decision making.