.smallish[Defining and measuring morality]

class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide

# .smallish[Defining and measuring morality]
## Week 1 - Moral Psychology

---

# Week 1

In the first week, after a review of the syllabus, we will be discussing how morality has been defined by philosophers and psychologists and  measured empirically.

.highlight-blue[In week 1:]
- How will the course be structured and your learning assessed?

- How do philosophers define morality?

- **How do psychologists define morality?**

- **How do psychologists measure morality?**

---
#Defining morality

Definitions of morality are either **descriptive** or **normative**

- **Normative**: morality is a code of conduct that would be agreed upon by all "rational" persons 
- **Descriptive**: morality is a system of morals that are endorsed by an individual or a group

- Morality is whatever a group or individual thinks is moral
  - E.g., Catholic morality, Democrat morality, Nazi morality
  
.footnote[Gert (2020)]
---

#Defining morality

- Philosophers generally develop normative theories, debating what we *ought* to think is moral and how we *ought* to make moral judgments

- Social scientists generally theorize descriptively, .highlight-blue[recording how individuals disagree about what is moral or immoral] and theorizing about the psychological mechanisms underlying those moral disagreements

.footnote[Gert (2020)]

---

# Five descriptive theories

A good descriptive theory of morality needs to account for the moral differences within and between populations of individuals

- It should be able to describe why one sibling is "pro-life" and the other "pro-choice" and why some cultures endorse "honor killings" while others find the practice abhorrent
  
--

.dq[Name a moral issue that you disagree with another person on.]

???
Gay rights, social distancing/ mask wearing/ vaccination

---

# Five descriptive theories

1. **Moral foundations theory**
2. The theory of dyadic morality
3. The model of moral motives
4. Relationship regulation
5. Circle of moral concern

---
# Moral foundations theory

.left-column-big[Haidt has taken a **functionalist** approaches to defining morality; he describes an act as moral if it fulfills a particular *function*.

>.smallish["Moral systems are interlocking sets of values, virtues, norms, practices, identities, institutions, technologies, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to .highlight-blue[suppress or regulate selfishness and make cooperative social life possible.]"]
.right[-Jonathan Haidt, 2010]]

.right-column-small[![](images/Haidt.jpg) 
<center><b>Jonathan Haidt</b>, <i>Social Psychologist</i></center>]

???
So anything that regulates/ suppresses selfishness can be considered moral by someone under this definition
---

# Moral foundations theory
.footnote[Haidt & Joseph (2007); Koleva et al. (2012)]

- Haidt proposed **moral foundations theory**, which theorizes that there are (at least) six moral foundations

- Moral foundations are taste receptors of the moral mind

- Everyone is capable of these moral intuitions, but forces (e.g., culture, experiences) shape how they are presented in a given individual

???

"The human tongue has five discrete taste receptors (for
sweet, sour, salt, bitter, and umami). Cultures vary enormously in their cuisines, which are cultural constructions shaped by historical events, yet the
world’s many cuisines must ultimately please tongues equipped with just five
innate and universal taste receptors"

- Language example. Everyone is born being capable of speaking all languages, but we lose the ability to be easily able to speak certain sounds without practice so we lose the ability to talk in certain languages naturally. Everyone is theorized to be born capable of having these moral intuitions

---

# Moral foundations theory