More interesting information on morality (from moral psychology and neuroscience)

Kohlberg and rationalist moral psychology argue that moral judgment and behavior are driven by conscious reasoning.

The competing humean school counterpois...es that moral judgments result from unconscious and automatic response and moral reasoning amounts to post-hoc rationalizations. Haidt brings forth the example of “moral dumbfounding” where people exhibit strong moral convictions they find difficult to justify. Our divided self is like a rider on the back of an elephant and we give far too much importance to the rider.

Greene seeks to synthesize rationalist and humean perspectives. Moral thinking combines emotional responses and rational constructions and reconstructions as shaped by biological and cultural forces. Most of us feel a strict obligation to save a nearby drowning child but no comparable obligation to save faraway sick and starving children through charitable donations and we care far more about identifiable victims than statistical deaths. We respond emotionally to ‘what is up close and personal” and such responses can conflict with what we conclude when we reason impersonally.



Neuroscience studies with the data from brain-imaging show that cognitive psychological processes can compete with emotional responses to drive people to approve of personally harmful moral violations, primarily when there is a strong consequentialist rationale for doing so.



Secondly, brain imaging studies have also shown that we often make decisions neurologically before consciously being aware of our decisions thus validating the above claims that emotive triggers



This is a reminder that issues of morality
1) are culturally subjective and we must be conscious of our own methodological biasedness.
2) originate from issues of emotion and thus when we deal in moral judgment, we must best "check our emotions at the door" to avoid irrationality in judgment.
3) must rightfully suspect our own "rationality" as it could be mere justifications. We must thus allow for debate and consensus from multiple perspectives to decide on issues of grave moral consequences.