The Dyadic Theory of Morals: the keys to this model by Kurt Gray

Morality is a concept that has been studied for thousands of years, mainly through philosophy and more recently from psychology.

To this day, models are still being proposed that try to explain this complex model in the most efficient way. It is precisely the objective of the dyadic theory of morality, which will be the central element of this article. We will try to shed light on this model in the following lines.

• Related article: "Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development"

What is the Dyadic Theory of Morals?

The dyadic theory of morality is a model that tries to explain the functioning of morality from a very particular perspective. Although several authors have been involved in its development, it is generally attributed to social psychologists, Chelsea Schein and Kurt Gray.

His approach is based on the existence of two fundamental elements for the perception of any transgression of morality, that is, of a dyad. This is the reason why this model has been called the dyadic theory of morality. The minds of human beings would use a kind of scheme to measure morality, based on these two elements.

What are those two key pieces? That of the moral agent and that of the moral patient. The moral agent would be the one who exercises the action whose morality is in question. It is the person, group, organization or any other entity that perpetrates the immoral action, and also does it in an intentional way, according to our perception.

But before a moral agent there is always, necessarily, according to the dyadic theory of morality, a moral patient. In other words, if someone commits an immoral act, someone is being the victim of that action and therefore is suffering its effects. That would be the moral patient, the person or group that is suffering the aggression of the other component of the dyad.

Quadrant of Morality

On this basis, we could establish a quadrant, placing each of these dimensions on two axes, and thus be able to classify people or groups based on whether they only have a predisposition to act as agents, that is, they have a high capacity for action, or they tend to be patient, since their characteristics make them conducive to suffer.

There are two other options, that of said entity scoring high in the two variables, so it could act but also suffer, according to the theory. dyadic of morality, and the fourth option, which would consist of a low predisposition to be either of the two options, that is, neither act nor suffer.

The first of the cases, that of having an absolute capacity to act but none to suffer, is reserved only for very powerful entities, such as a large corporation. If it can only suffer consequences but not generate them, we would be talking about a being like a child or a defenseless animal.

The average human being, on the other hand, is situated in the third of the levels, that of being able to both act and suffer. Finally, the fourth option provided by the dyadic theory of morality, would be to have neither of the two capacities, and for this we would have to refer only to inert beings.

These categories are interesting, because there is a correlation between them and other elements, such as are the rights and obligations, both at a legal and moral level, which is the issue that we occupies. Along these lines, it is observed that if a person or entity has a greater capacity to act than to suffer, he would have more obligations than rights.

On the contrary, that subject or group that is more patient than moral agent, will see in his favor more rights than responsibilities. In other words, those in the first category are assigned moral responsibility, while those in the second category are assumed to have moral rights.

• You may be interested in: "The 10 main psychological theories"

What happens when the dyad is incomplete?

We saw at the beginning that the dyadic theory of morality implies existence in all cases, according to the mental scheme that We handle two fundamental elements to consider all moral transgression: that of the one who exercises it and that of the one who commits it. suffers. But what happens when only one of the two is present?

In that case, we tend to presume the other element. That is, the human being seems to have a certain predisposition to assign the role of the element not present someone who fits into our schemes, in order to complete the model of the dyadic theory of moral. As we will see next, this mechanism works in two directions.

In the first place, we may be facing a situation in which we observe a moral agent, that is, someone or something that is exercising a certain action that we could qualify as immoral, according to our values ​​or ideals. Even if there is no one present who is acting as a moral patient, inevitably, we will tend to assign that category and thus complete the dyad..

In this way, we will assume that if someone is transgressing morality in any way, it is clear that someone he is being a victim of this fact and therefore suffering its consequences, although objectively it does not have to be So. It is an automatic matter, it happens without our being able to avoid it.

But we already saw that it is not the only way in which this mechanism can work. The other way occurs when we find someone who is suffering some kind of suffering. In that case, the dyadic theory of morality also makes us tend to complete the dyad, but in the other sense.

Namely, what an observer would automatically do would be to assume that, since there is a moral patient, there must be a moral agent that is the cause of the suffering of that person or group. Even for events as alien to morality as are natural disasters (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.), when cause suffering in many people, there will be those who attribute authorship to entities such as God or their own nature.

Cataloging on a moral level

Another issue that highlights the dyadic theory of morality is what the authors call moral pigeonhole. This phenomenon refers to the tendency that human beings have to give the category to another person or group, either as an agent or as a moral patient.

The point is that, When cataloging a subject, for example as a moral agent, what is being done at the same time, and automatically, is to deny him the condition of a moral patient, since the observers move in extremes.

Therefore, when considering that a person is a transgressor of a moral norm, he will be pigeonholed in that condition and will be very difficult for us to consider at some point that he may be a moral patient, that is, that he may be the victim of another moral actor different.

The mechanism is bidirectional, so exactly the same happens with those groups or individuals who have been moral patients.. In that case, they will hold the status of victims, and we will not consider that they can be actors of transgressions of the norm, since we will see them only as patients and never as agents.

If we delve into this question, we can realize the consequences of this approach made by the dyadic theory of morality. And it is that, on many occasions, we run the risk of stigmatizing people, groups or organizations, for a concrete fact, by which they will become potential moral offenders with each action they take.

On the contrary, the opposite phenomenon can also occur, and it is that an entity that at a certain time has suffered morally because of others, can retain that category and in some way attenuate or exempt any possible moral agency that in the future commits towards others.

This appreciation is of great relevance and can help us to be more aware of the moral judgments that we constantly make. towards people and groups, considering them actors or victims, depending on the cataloging that we have made about them in a beginning.

But the reality can be very different and we may not be realizing that, for In general, moral actors are not always actors, nor are moral patients patients forever. Conversely, the normal thing is that every person is, sometimes agent and sometimes patient, without necessarily having the same condition at all times.

As we can see, the dyadic theory of morals serves, among other things, to make us aware of this important phenomenon, and we can take it into account to adopt a more objective position on the morality.

Bibliographic references:

• Gray, K., Young, L., Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychological Inquiry. Taylor & Francis.
• Malo, P. (2019). The Essence of Morality: The Dyadic Theory of Morals. Evolution and Neurosciences.
• Schein, C., Goranson, A., Gray, K. (2015). The uncensored truth about morality. The Psychologist. The British Psychological Society.
• Schein, C., Gray, K. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review.