Moral reasoning: what it is, and explanatory theories

Moral reasoning is an idea that, although it may seem somewhat obvious, understood as the ability to reasoning before morally debatable situations is an aspect of human beings that is still being doing research.

Various authors throughout history have tried to explain why we behave differently when faced with situations in which, even if we could make a purely objective decision, it would not convince us. Let's see who they are and what has been understood what is moral reasoning and what are the characteristics that define it.

• Related article: "The 9 types of thinking and their characteristics"

What is moral reasoning?

Moral reasoning is a concept from the philosophy and experimental and developmental psychology, which refers to the ability of human beings to carry out a critical analysis in the face of a certain situation in which it is not possible to obtain a satisfactory answer if it is done based on purely criteria logical. It is about applying one's moral values ​​to know if acting one way or another would be correct or not.

Moral reasoning can also be defined as the process in which individuals try to determine the difference between what is correct and what is not using logic. It is a daily process, which sometimes manifests itself in a very subtle way, in situations that would not seem to us that moral processes were involved. From an early age, human beings are capable of making moral decisions about what we believe to be right or wrong.

It has been seen that everyday decisions, such as deciding what to wear, what to eat or say to go to the gym are quite similar to decisions in which you have to apply moral reasoning, such as deciding if it is okay to lie, thinking about the appropriateness of recycling, or daring to ask a loved one who we see in a bad mood if he or she is okay.

Although moral reasoning is something that we all apply in our day to day, It is very difficult for us to explain why we have made a certain decision, no matter how banal it may be. The idea of ​​"moral stupefaction" has even been raised to describe those people who, although they wear carrying out reasoning of this kind, they are not able to explain why they have decided to take a certain reason.

Many of the decisions we make that involve following laws or moral rules, we do not make logically., but based on emotions. Decisions are influenced by internal aspects (p. g., prejudices) or external aspects (eg, opinions of other people, what they will say).

Moral reasoning from philosophy

Since the concept of moral reasoning implies the mobilization of our moral values, it is logical to think that the history of Philosophy has tried to give an explanation to how people come to make the decisions we make, and based on what morals we we move.

Philosopher David Hume commented that morality is based more on perceptions than on logical reasoning. purely said. This means that morality is based more on subjective aspects, clearly linked to feelings and emotions, than to a logical analysis of the given situation.

Another philosopher, Jonathan Haidt, also agrees with Hume, defending the idea that reasoning related to moral aspects comes as a consequence of an initial intuition, a purely subjective perception of the world around us. Moral intuitions involve moral judgments.

Immanuel Kant's vision, however, is radically different. In his vision, he considers that there are universal laws for morality, and that these can never be broken on their own. They must be broken because of emotions. That is why this philosopher proposes a four-step model to determine whether a decision or moral action has been taken from logic or not.

The first step of the method is to formulate "a maxim capturing the reason for an action." The second step, "think that action was a universal principle for all rational agents." Then comes the third, "if the world based on this universal principle is conceivable." The fourth, ask oneself "if one would make this principle as a maxim in this world." In essence, and in a less elaborate way, an action is moral if the maxim can be universalized without the world becoming a chaotic environment.

For example, let's think about whether it is morally correct or not to lie. For it, we must imagine what would happen if everyone lied. Normally, people lie when they think they can get some kind of profit from doing it, but if everyone lies, what profit is there in it? We will assume that absolutely everything they tell us is not true, that is why it would not be good to lie, according to Kant's model.

Research from developmental psychology

Starting in the last century, the concept of moral reasoning was acquiring much importance within the field of psychology, the views of the following authors having special importance:

1. Jean piaget

Jean Piaget proposed two phases in the development of morality. One of these phases would be common in children, and the other would be common in adults.

The first is called Heteronomous Phase, and is characterized by the idea that the rules are imposed by reference adults, such as parents, teachers or the idea of ​​God.

It also implies the idea that the rules are permanent, no matter what happens. In addition, this phase of development includes the belief that all "naughty" behavior will always be punished, and that the punishment will be proportional. It can be seen in this Piagetian approach that the infantile mind is characterized by the belief that one lives in a just world and that when something bad is done, it will be duly corrected.

The other phase within Piaget's theory is the so-called Autonomous Phase., which is common after they have matured.

In this phase, people see the intentions behind the actions of others more importantly than even their consequences. Importance is given to the act itself more than its end, and that is why there are deontologies in science ("the end does not justify the means").

This phase includes the idea that people have different morals and, therefore, our criteria for determining what is right and what is wrong is very varied. There is no universal morality and justice is not something that remains static.

• You may be interested: "Jean Piaget's Theory of Learning"

2. Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg, greatly influenced by Piagetian ideas, made very important contributions in the field of moral reasoning, creating the theory of the development of morality. His theory provides an empirical basis on the study of human decisions when carrying out ethical behavior.

Kohlberg is important in the history of psychology with respect to the scientific approach to what is understood by moral reasoning since, in research, it is the model of it that is usually used to understand the idea of ​​this concept.

According to Kohlberg, the development of morality implies a maturation in which we take a less egocentric and more impartial conception with respect to themes of different complexity.

He believed that the goal of moral education was to encourage children who were at one stage of development to be able to successfully access the next. To do this, dilemmas could be a very useful tool to pose situations to children to which they should use their moral reasoning.

According to his model, people must go through three stages of moral development as they grow up, from early childhood to adulthood. These stadiums are the pre-conventional level, the conventional level and the post-conventional level, and each of them is divided into two levels.

In the first phase of the first stage, this is the preconventional level, there are two fundamental aspects to take into account: obedience and punishment. In this phase, people, usually still very young children, try to avoid certain behaviors for fear of being punished. They try to avoid the negative response as a consequence of the punishable action.

In the second phase of the first stage, the fundamental aspects are individualism and exchange. In this phase people take moral decisions based on what best suits your needs.

The third phase is part of the next stage, the conventional level, and here interpersonal relationships take on importance. Here one tries to adjust to what society considers moral, trying to present oneself to others as a good person and who conforms to social demands.

The fourth phase, which is also in the second stage, advocates trying to maintain social order. This phase focuses on seeing society as a whole, and it is about following its laws and norms.

The fifth stage is part of the post-conventional level, and this is called the social contract and individual rights phase. In this phase people begin to consider that there are different ideas regarding how morality is understood from person to person.

The sixth and final phase of moral development is called universal principles.. In this phase, people begin to develop their ideas of what is understood as moral principles, and consider them as true regardless of the laws of society.

• You may be interested: "Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development"

Controversy with gender differences

Given that behavioral differences have been seen between men and women, associated with differences in their personality, also the idea was raised that there was a different way of moral reasoning based on gender.

Some researchers suggested that women would have a more sacrifice-oriented thinking or the satisfaction of needs, implying a role of “caregivers”, while the Men would be more focused on elaborating moral reasoning based on how just and how satisfactory they are when it comes to fulfilling rights, involving more “fighting” roles.

However, others have suggested that these differences in moral reasoning between men and women, Rather than being due to gender-specific factors, it would be due to the type of dilemmas that men and women face in their day-to-day lives.. Being a man and being a woman implies, unfortunately, a different vision of how it is treated or treated and, also, different types of moral dilemmas.

For this reason, in the field of research it has been tried to see how moral reasoning occurs in laboratory conditions, the same for men and women, seeing that really, faced with the same moral dilemma, both genders behave in the same way, using the same reasoning moral.

Bibliographic references:

• Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-064760-5.
• Piaget, J. (1932). The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. ISBN 978-0-02-925240-6.
• Nell, O., (1975). Acting on principle: An essay on Kantian ethics, New York: Columbia University Press.
• Haidt, J., (2001). "The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment," Psychological Review, 108: 814–34.