Moral reasoning: what it is, and explanatory theories

Let us look at the ways in which psychology explains how we decide what is right or wrong.

Moral reasoning is an idea that, although it may seem somewhat obvious, understood as the ability to reason in morally debatable situations, is an aspect of human beings that is still under investigation.

Several authors throughout history have tried to explain why we behave differently in situations where, 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 moral reasoning is and which are the characteristics that define it.

What is moral reasoning?

Moral reasoning is a concept coming from philosophy and developmental and experimental psychology, which refers to the capacity of human beings to carry out a critical analysis in a given situation in which it is not possible to obtain a satisfactory answer based on purely logical criteria. It is a matter of applying one's own moral values to know whether to act in one way or another. to know whether to act in 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 right and what is wrong using logic. It is a daily process, which sometimes manifests itself in a very subtle way, in situations that would not seem to us to involve moral processes. From a very 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 going to the gym are quite similar to decisions in which moral reasoning has to be applied, such as deciding whether it is okay to lie, thinking about the appropriateness of recycling or daring to ask a loved one we see in a bad mood if he or she is okay.

Although moral reasoning is something we all apply in our day-to-day lives, it is very difficult for us to explain moral reasoning, it is very difficult for us to explain why we have made a certain decision, no matter how banal it may seem.. The idea of "moral stupefaction" has even been put forward to describe those people who, although they carry out this type of reasoning, are not able to explain why they have decided to take a certain reason.

Many of the decisions we make that involve following moral laws or rules are not made logically, but on the basis of emotions.but on the basis of emotions. Decisions are influenced by internal aspects (e.g., prejudices) or external aspects (e.g., other people's opinions, what people will say).

Moral reasoning from philosophy

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

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

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

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

The first step of the method consists of formulating "a maxim capturing the reason for an action". The second step, "to think of the action as a universal principle for all rational agents". Then comes the third, "whether the world based on this universal principle is conceivable." The fourth, asking oneself "whether one would make this principle as a maxim in this world." In essence, and in a less far-fetched 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 right or wrong to lie. To do so, we must imagine what would happen if everyone lied.... Normally, people lie when they think they can derive some kind of benefit from doing so, but if everyone lies, what benefit is there in doing so? We will assume that absolutely everything we are told is not true, which is why it would not be right to lie, according to Kant's model.

Research from developmental psychology

Since the last century, the concept of moral reasoning has been acquiring great importance in the field of psychology, with the views of the following authors being of particular importance:

1. Jean Piaget

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

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

It also involves the idea that rules are permanent, no matter what. In addition, included in this stage of development is the belief that all "naughty" behavior will always be punished, and that the punishment will be proportionate. It can be seen in this Piagetian approach that the infant mind is characterized by the belief that one lives in a just world and that, when something wrong is done, it will be duly corrected.

The other phase within Piaget's theory is the so-called Autonomous Phasewhich is common after maturity.

In this phase, people see the intentions behind the actions of others as more important than even their consequences. Importance is given to the act itself rather than its end, which is why there are deontologies in the sciences ("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 are very varied. There is no universal morality and justice is not something that remains static.

2. Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg, heavily influenced by Piagetian ideas, made very important contributions in the field of moral reasoning, creating the theory of moral development. His theory provides an empirical basis for the study of human decisions in ethical behavior.

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

According to Kohlberg, the development of morality involves a maturation in which we take a less egocentric and more impartial conception of moral reasoning with respect to issues of varying complexity.

He believed that the goal of moral education was to encourage children who were at a particular stage of development to reach the next stage of development in a satisfactory way. To this end, dilemmas could be a very useful tool for presenting children with situations in which they had to use their moral reasoning.

According to his model, people must pass through three stages of moral development as they grow from early childhood to adulthood. These stages are the preconventional 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, that is the preconventional level, there are two fundamental aspects to take into account: obedience and punishment. In this phase people, usually very young children, try to avoid certain behaviors for fear of being punished. They try to avoid the negative response resulting from the punishable action.

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

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

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

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 to be true independently of the laws of society.

Controversy with gender differences

Given that behavioral differences have been seen between men and women, associated with differences in their personality, also the idea that there were different ways of reasoning morally depending on gender was also raised..

Some researchers suggested that women would have more sacrificial or need-fulfillment oriented thinking, implying a "nurturer" role, while men would be more focused on making moral reasoning based on how fair and satisfying they are in fulfilling rights, implying more "fighter" 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 life. Being a man and being a woman implies, unfortunately, a different vision of how one is treated and, also, different types of moral dilemmas.

For this reason, in the field of research we have 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 moral reasoning.

Bibliographical 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.