The Psychology of Morality
The Psychology of Morality
On Foundations, Development, and Conflict in Luminaria
The sources demonstrate a deep engagement between morality and psychology, particularly through influential theories of moral development, models of ethical decision-making, and studies of how individuals perceive and respond to moral complexity and deviance.
Major Psychological Theories of Morality
1. Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)
Moral Foundations Theory is a social psychological theory intended to explain the origins and variation in human moral reasoning based on innate, modular foundations. It was first proposed by psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham.
Moral Intuitions: MFT describes the psychological mechanisms underlying human moral intuitions—instantaneous "flashes of judgment" in response to morally charged stimuli. The theory suggests morality is not singular but composed of multiple instincts.
The Five Foundations:
Harm/Care
Fairness/Reciprocity
Ingroup/Loyalty
Authority/Respect
Purity/Sanctity
Individual vs. Group Concerns: Care and Fairness are individualizing foundations; Loyalty, Authority, and Purity are binding or group-focused foundations.
Predicting Deviant Behavior: Stronger emphasis on group-oriented concerns predicts lower likelihood of deviance, more so than individual-level concerns.
Morality in Media Perception: Viewers forgive Authority and Purity violations more readily than Care or Loyalty violations. Heroes who break rules often remain beloved if they uphold care and fairness.
2. Cognitive Moral Development (Kohlberg)
Lawrence Kohlberg’s model (1969; 1976) remains a cornerstone of moral psychology, emphasizing justice as the central concept in moral reasoning.
Stages of Moral Reasoning:
Pre-conventional: self-interest focused (children, some adults).
Conventional: societal values and norms (most adults).
Post-conventional: universal principles, sacrificing self-interest for greater good (rare).
Cognition vs. Behavior: Moral reasoning justifies choices, but judgment alone does not guarantee moral behavior.
Application: Failures of morality often reflect stagnation at pre- or conventional stages. Education can nurture growth toward principled reasoning.
Psychological Concepts in Ethical Decision-Making
Psychological variables often moderate ethical choices, shaping consistency between moral judgment and moral action:
Ego Strength: Inner conviction and self-regulation; strong ego predicts consistent moral action.
Locus of Control: Internals (self-control) act more consistently with their moral judgments than externals (fate/luck focus).
Field Dependence: Reliance on external cues; field-dependent individuals lean on social referents in ambiguity.
Empathy: Sensitivity to others’ suffering; high empathy predicts ethical sensitivity.
Self-Control: Strong predictor of moral behavior; lack of self-control often links to deviance.
The Psychology of Moral Conflict and Ambiguity
Characters and people alike wrestle with competing instincts of reason, emotion, and self-perception:
Dual-Process Theory: Emotional vs. rational systems often clash (e.g., Trolley Problem). Personal harm activates emotional reasoning; impersonal dilemmas activate logical reasoning.
Cognitive Dissonance: Characters embody dissonance when their actions clash with beliefs. This tension makes them relatable and drives growth.
Intention and Morality: Intent matters; consequentialist frameworks obscure this by focusing on outcome. In Luminaria, intent often marks the line between justified sacrifice and cruelty.
Jungian Conflict: Suppressed functions drive shadow behavior. A thinker may despise feelers because their judgments stem from alien places—yet the thinker’s growth often lies in reconciling that rejection.
Critiques of Morality in Psychological Research
Psychological approaches to morality are not without critique:
Bias Toward Universalism: Early research (Kohlberg, Turiel) defined morality as universal a priori, limiting scope and reinforcing Kantian traditions.
Cognition over Character: Overemphasis on reasoning ignores the role of will, virtue, and freedom. Models often reduce ethics to intellectual judgment, neglecting heart and character.
Instrumentalization: Some frameworks treat morality as variables to manipulate for compliance, rather than cultivating freedom or virtue.
Luminaria Perspective
In Luminaria, the psychology of morality is seen as both map and mirror. It explains why cultures differ, why gods clash, and why heroes fracture under their own choices.
“The mind explains how we choose. The heart explains why we cannot stop choosing wrongly.”
— Scholar of the Dreaming Spire