Moral Reasoning: What it Is, and Explanatory Theories

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

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

What is moral reasoning?

Moral reasoning is a concept from philosophy and developmental and experimental psychology, which refers to the ability of human beings to carry out a critical analysis in a certain situation in which it is not possible to obtain a satisfactory answer if it is It is done based on purely logical criteria. It is about applying one’s own moral values ​​to knowing if acting in one way or another would be correct or not

Moral reasoning can also be defined as the process in which individuals attempt 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 that moral processes were involved. From a very early age, human beings are capable of making moral decisions about what we believe is right or wrong.

It has been seen that everyday decisions, such as deciding what to wear, what to eat or saying, 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 what is appropriate to recycle or dare to ask a loved one who we see in a bad mood if they are okay.

Although moral reasoning is something that we all apply in our daily lives, It is very difficult for us to explain why we have made a certain decision, no matter how banal it may be The idea of ​​“moral stupefaction” has even been proposed to describe those people who, although they carry out reasoning of this type, are not able to explain why they have decided to take a certain reason.

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

Moral reasoning from philosophy

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

Philosopher David Hume commented that morality is based more on perceptions than on logical reasoning purely said. 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 reasoning related to moral aspects comes as a consequence of an initial intuition, a purely subjective perception of the world around us. Moral intuitions involve moral judgments.

Immanuel Kant’s vision, however, is radically different In his vision he considers that there are universal laws for morality, and that these can never be broken on their own. They must break because of 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 is to formulate “a maxim capturing the reason for an action.” The second step, “think about action being a universal principle for all rational agents.” Then comes the third, “whether the world based on this universal principle is conceivable.” The fourth, ask yourself “if one would make this principle 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 or not it is morally right to lie. For it, We must imagine what would happen if everyone lied Normally, people lie when they think they can get some kind of benefit from it, but if everyone lies, what good is there in it? We will assume that absolutely everything they tell us is not true, which is why it would not be right to lie, according to Kant’s model.

Research from developmental psychology

Starting in the last century, the concept of moral reasoning became very important within the field of psychology, with the visions of the following authors having special importance:

1. Jean Piaget

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

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

It also implies the idea that rules are permanent, no matter what happens. Additionally, this phase of development includes the belief that all “naughty” behavior will always be punished, and that the punishment will be proportional. It can be seen in this Piagetian approach that the child’s mind is characterized by the belief that one lives in a just world and that, when something bad is done, it will be duly corrected.

The other phase within Piaget’s theory is the so-called Autonomous Phase which is common after it has matured.

In this phase, people see the intentions behind the actions of others more important than even their consequences. The act itself is given importance more than its end, and that 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 is very varied. There is no universal morality and justice is not something that remains static.

2. Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg, greatly influenced by Piagetian ideas, made very important contributions to the field of moral reasoning, creating the theory of the development of morality. His theory provides an empirical basis for the study of human decisions when carrying out ethical conduct.

Kohlberg is important in the history of psychology with respect to the scientific approach to what is understood by moral reasoning given that, in research, it is his model that is usually 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 regarding topics of different complexity.

He believed that the objective of moral education was to encourage children who were in a specific stage of development to be able to access the next satisfactorily. To do this, dilemmas could be a very useful tool to present situations to children in which they had to use their moral reasoning.

According to their model, people must pass through three stages of moral development as they grow, from early childhood to adulthood. These stages are the pre-conventional 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, this is the pre-conventional 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 take 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 adjust to what society considers moral, trying to present oneself to others as a good person who adjusts to social demands.

The fourth phase, which is also in the second stage, it advocates trying to maintain social order This phase focuses on seeing society as a 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 are 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, it is also The idea was raised that there was a different way of reasoning morally depending on gender

Some researchers suggested that women would have thinking more oriented toward sacrifice or satisfying needs, implying a “caretaker” role, while men would be more focused on developing moral reasoning based on how fair and how satisfactory they are at the time. to comply with rights, implying more “fighting” roles.

However, others have suggested that these differences in moral reasoning between men and women, Rather than being due to factors specific to gender, it would be due to the type of dilemmas that men and women face in their daily lives Being a man and being a woman imply, 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, when faced with the same moral dilemma, both genders behave in the same way. way, using the same moral reasoning.