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 and Topics
This paper explores the tension between intuitive/affective processes and conscious reasoning in moral decision-making, utilizing recent neurobiological and psychological research to analyze the debate between Jonathan Haidt and his critics, Pizarro and Bloom.
- The dual-process nature of the human brain in moral motivation and judgment.
- Jonathan Haidt’s "Social Intuitionist Approach" and the priority of intuition over reason.
- Critiques by Pizarro and Bloom regarding the role of "prior reasoning" and cognitive control.
- Philosophical implications comparing Humean/Intuitionist views with Kantian rationalism.
Excerpt from the Book
The Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment
Jonathan Haidt presents this approach as an alternative to rationalist models of moral judgment. Ethical intuitionism is presented as a position that holds that “there are moral truths and that when people grasp these truths they do so not by a process of ratiocination and reflection but rather by a process more akin to perception” (Haidt 2001: 814). This is still a kind of cognition, but it is not reasoning.
This intuitionist model is combined by Haidt with a social component that makes moral judgment into an interpersonal process (ibid.). Moral judgment is intuitive but after having decided, “when faced with a social demand for verbal justification, one becomes a lawyer trying to build a case rather than a judge searching for the truth” (ibid.). Reason only appears at a point in time when the decision has already been made and it is used only for ex post justification.
Traditional philosophy has for a long time favored reasoning as the main source of input to moral judgment. Haidt dissents and bases his doubt about the causal importance of reason on four main considerations (cf. Haidt 2001: 819 f):
a) Moral judgments are formed by two cognitive processes, reasoning and intuition, which are running in parallel and in which the intuitive process is dominating. It is only in the interpersonal process of justification that reasoning plays a role.
b) Reasoning is often motivated by motives about relatedness and coherence. People want their moral behavior to be in accordance with their social environment and coherent with their general attitudes and beliefs.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the scope of the paper, focusing on the balance between intuition and conscious reasoning within moral decision-making.
2. The Neurophysiology of Moral Judgment: Examines how cortical and subcortical brain regions contribute to dual-process moral decision-making.
3. The Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment: Details Haidt's theory that moral judgment is primarily intuitive, with reasoning serving mainly for post-hoc justification.
4. A pertinent controversy: Discusses the debate between Haidt and critics Pizarro and Bloom regarding the capacity for prior reasoning.
5. Evaluation of the arguments: Provides the author’s assessment of the controversy, suggesting that while intuition is dominant, prior reasoning remains possible.
6. Philosophical Aspects of the dilemma discussed.: Connects the psychological debate to historical philosophical perspectives from Hume, Kant, Freud, and others.
7. Conclusion: Summarizes the findings and emphasizes the need for further research to resolve the conflict between intuition and rationality.
Keywords
Moral Judgment, Intuition, Reasoning, Social Intuitionist Approach, Neurophysiology, Dual-process Theory, Pizarro and Bloom, Jonathan Haidt, Cognitive Appraisal, Moral Motivation, Ethics, Psychology, Rationalism, Philosophical Moral Psychology, Decision-making.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper investigates the balance between intuitive, affective responses and conscious rational reasoning in the context of human moral decision-making.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The primary themes include the neurobiological underpinnings of moral judgment, the social intuitionist model, the debate regarding the limits of rationality, and the philosophical history of moral cognition.
What is the author’s primary research goal?
The goal is to analyze whether moral judgments are fundamentally driven by intuition or if conscious reasoning plays a substantive, causal role in directing our moral lives.
Which scientific method does the author employ?
The paper utilizes a literature-based analysis of recent psychological experiments and neurobiological research, contrasted with classical and modern philosophical theories.
What does the main body cover?
The main body covers the neurophysiology of the brain, the specific claims of Jonathan Haidt’s social intuitionist model, the critical counter-arguments provided by Pizarro and Bloom, and an evaluation of how these findings align with philosophical traditions.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include Moral Judgment, Social Intuitionist Approach, Neurophysiology, Dual-process Theory, and Moral Reasoning.
What is the "Social Intuitionist Approach" according to Haidt?
It is the theory that moral judgments are arrived at primarily through rapid, unconscious intuitions, and that "reasoning" is often an after-the-fact justification for a decision already made.
How do Pizarro and Bloom challenge Haidt’s conclusions?
They argue that Haidt neglects "prior reasoning"—the ability to use cognitive appraisal and selective environmental exposure to train and influence our intuitions before a moral situation arises.
What is the role of the brain's subcortical regions in this context?
These regions, such as the affective striatum and amygdala, are associated with intuitive emotional and affective responses that often override rational processes under stress.
Why does the author feel that "philosophical considerations" are necessary?
The author believes that the psychological debate mimics a long-standing philosophical divide between those who view human nature through a naturalistic, emotional lens (like Hume) and those who emphasize reason (like Kant).
- Quote paper
- Karl-Heinz Mayer (Author), 2013, Intuition and Reasoning in Moral Judgment, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/304273
