This seminar paper is about the balance between intuition and affect on one hand, and conscious reasoning on the other, in moral decisions. The basis for this analysis consists of recent neurobiological and psychological research.
The paper first looks for some input from Neurophysiology to understand what is known about the “wiring” in our brain for moral decisions. Are moral judgments effectuated in the “rational” cortical regions of the brain or in the “intuitive”, affective, and emotional subcortical region?
It then presents a controversy between Jonathan Haidt and Pizarro and Bloom over the predominance of intuition over reasoning in moral judgment. Jonathan Haidt proposes a theory called Social Intuitionist Approach that postulates a priority of intuition over reason, combined with a social component. Moral decisions are predominantly intuitive, he argues, and reason is primarily used to justify the decision afterwards.
Pizarro and Bloom are not fully convinced. While they agree with some parts of Haidt’s theory, they contradict his overall conclusion about the dominance of intuition over reason. In their opinion there is sufficient room for training one’s intuitions and for rationally preparing moral decisions.
Haidt counters the counter-arguments, but concedes that statistical data are missing, which would allow a final assessment of the matter.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Neurophysiology of Moral Judgment
3. The Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment
4. A pertinent controversy
Objections to Haidt (2001) by Pizarro and Bloom
Cognitive Appraisal
Control over the input
Reply by Jonathan Haidt to the objections by Pizarro and Bloom
5. Evaluation of the arguments
6. Philosophical Aspects of the dilemma discussed.
7. Conclusion
Objectives & Core Themes
This paper examines the tension between intuitive, affect-driven moral judgments and conscious, rational reasoning, drawing on contemporary neurobiological and psychological research to assess the validity of conflicting theories in moral psychology.
- The neurophysiological basis of moral decision-making processes.
- Analysis of Jonathan Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Approach.
- Critical examination of objections raised by Pizarro and Bloom regarding rational control.
- The role of "prior reasoning" and cognitive appraisal in shaping moral outcomes.
- Historical and philosophical perspectives on the intuition-reason debate.
Excerpt from the Book
A pertinent controversy
Pizarro and Bloom, in a reply to Jonathan Haidt (2003), agree to some of his findings, but not to all (cf. Pizarro 2003)
Objections to Haidt (2001) by Pizarro and Bloom
Basically the two challengers advocate a rationalist theory and hold that people possess intuitively given (and potentially sacrosanct) first principles – but posit that these serve as a starting point for deliberative reasoning, which can play an important role in the formation of moral judgments. Contrary to Hume, it is the rational dog that wags the emotional tail, not vice versa. (Pizarro 2003: 194)
Pizarro and Bloom distinguish between two different ways in which, according to Haidt, moral judgment can be affected by reasoning: one is reasoned judgment, wherein logic overrides moral intuition, the other is private reflection, wherein “one activates a new intuition that contradicts an earlier judgment” (ibid.). They think that Haidt is overlooking a third important way of influencing intuitions by reasoning, which is prior reasoning - reasoning that happens before intuitions are brought to bear. They distinguish between two ways of bringing this about – one consists of shifts in cognitive appraisal and the other in conscious control over situations to expose oneself to. In both cases control is exerted over “which fast, unconscious, and automatic intuitions emerge” (ibid.).
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: Outlines the core conflict between intuitive and rational processes in moral decision-making and introduces the key contributors to the debate.
2. The Neurophysiology of Moral Judgment: Explores the brain structures involved in moral motivation, highlighting the interplay between cortical and subcortical regions.
3. The Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment: Details Haidt’s theory that moral judgment is an interpersonal, intuitive process where reasoning primarily serves post-hoc justification.
4. A pertinent controversy: Presents the debate between Haidt and Pizarro/Bloom, focusing on whether reasoning can exert influence over future intuitions.
5. Evaluation of the arguments: Provides a personal synthesis of the debate, questioning whether we have the capacity for self-determined moral lives.
6. Philosophical Aspects of the dilemma discussed.: Connects the contemporary scientific debate to historical and modern philosophical positions by Hume, Kant, Freud, Wittgenstein, and Searle.
7. Conclusion: Summarizes the current state of the field, noting that while the debate remains unresolved, it provides essential new insights into human moral functioning.
Keywords
Moral judgment, Intuition, Reasoning, Neurophysiology, Social Intuitionist Approach, Moral psychology, Cognitive appraisal, Pizarro and Bloom, Jonathan Haidt, Dual-process theory, Moral motivation, Rationality, Affective responses, Philosophical ethics, Unconscious processing
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this paper?
The paper explores the balance between intuition/affect and conscious reasoning in human moral decision-making, based on recent interdisciplinary research.
What are the central thematic fields?
The primary themes include neurobiological brain functioning, social intuitionist theory, the possibility of rational moral control, and the historical philosophical context of the intuition-reason debate.
What is the primary objective of the research?
The aim is to evaluate whether moral decisions are primarily intuitive as Haidt suggests, or if there is sufficient evidence for Pizarro and Bloom's claim that deliberate reasoning can influence and "train" our future intuitions.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The work utilizes a literature-based analysis, synthesizing evidence from psychological experiments and neurophysiological studies to critique competing psychological models.
What topics are covered in the main section?
The main section moves from the neural basis of decision-making to a critical analysis of the debate between Haidt and his critics, concluding with a bridge to philosophical tradition.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is best defined by terms like Moral judgment, Intuition, Reasoning, Dual-process theory, and Social Intuitionist Approach.
How does the author interpret the term "prior reasoning"?
Based on Pizarro and Bloom, the author describes it as reasoning that occurs before an intuitive response is triggered, allowing individuals to shape their future intuitive reactions through cognitive appraisal and control over their environment.
Why does the author feel that Haidt's theory is "disturbing"?
The author notes that if we are entirely at the mercy of unconscious intuitions, it challenges the human capacity for self-determination and the ability to conduct a life aligned with one's own values.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Dkfm., BA Karl-Heinz Mayer (Autor:in), 2014, Intuition and Reasoning in Moral Judgment, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/273346
