Moral Decision-Making - Essay Example

Moral Decision Making al affiliation All the people sometimes face moral dilemmas which may be really difficult to solve. To take a moral decision often means to refuse from private interests and sacrifice pleasure. It is possible to say that morality is quite a subjective category. In other words, it is beyond good and evil. What is good for some people may be bad for others. That is why to take a moral decision means to do as little harm as possible. Moral priorities and judgments of a person may depend on a situation. People occupying different positions in a system of subordination may view one and the same situations differently. At the same time, the level of morality of a decision a person is going to take may depend on people around them. Humans are sociable beings, that is why they hardly ever act as individuals. Thus, in most cases a person refuses from their own opinion and joins the one of the group majority. However, there is another approach, according to which the level of moral development is the same in any environment. However, it seems to be a bit idealistic if to take into consideration results of some of the experiments, revealing that even people of high moral values may be conformists. Although decision making is a hard work, a person may come to a moral decision quite quickly. In fact, people need much more time in order to take pragmatic decisions. The question is whether a person would be able to refuse from self-interests for the sake of morality. Key words: moral decision making, morality, moral dilemmas, moral development, private interest. Moral Decision Making The way people feel what is right and what is wrong may depend on a situation. At the same time, people hardly ever suspect their moral priorities are changing under certain circumstances. This tendency is of special interest for those who investigate moral issues and try to answer why people tend to take either moral or immoral decisions. The system of subordination may be a good example to demonstrate it. The way those who occupy senior positions assess certain situations is usually different from the way the same situations are viewed by their subordinates. Similarly, medical officers and soldiers may demonstrate different priorities in the course of military actions. For instance, the way they perceive the number of victims among civilian population is not the same. The results of the investigation are published in The Academy of Management Journal. Dr. Keith Leavitt, a professor in Oregon State University and one of the researches, states that those people who occupy two different positions may alter their moral values in accordance with the way they are expected to act in each concrete situation (Leavitt, 2012). For example, it is possible to compare an editor and a PR manager, both working for the same publishing house. Both of them may assess the work they perform differently, though they work within one sphere and take the same amount of efforts. As Leavitt says, the moment people change social roles they perform, the set of their moral criteria changes as well (Leavitt, 2012). People like thinking they are moral beings, though the researches reveal this is not always true. People may take totally different decisions from the viewpoint of morality and ethics. The social role and status a person is having at a concrete moment would be the decisive factor. At the same time, most people are unlikely to suspect their moral criteria are altering. What is more, there is another viewpoint, interweaving with Leavitt’s one. Neuropsychology, a comparatively new psychology discipline, investigates the way psychological processes and human behavior are influenced by structure and function of the brain. According to Arthur Benton, professor of Neurology and Psychology at the University of Iowa, brain is “an organ of the mind, where the shape of the skull could ultimately determine ones intelligence and personality” (Benton, 2000). Neuropsychologists consider the process of decision making to be just an activity of neural networks in a human brain. Experiments on primates show that a neuronal population or even a single neuron may accumulate decision-related information. A decision is taken when the level of neuronal activity achieves its threshold. Therefore, it is possible to model the process of decision making through the influence over neural networks of a human brain. Thus, morality becomes quite a relative category. This is one of the central issues in research by Dr. Shane S. Bush, an American neuropsychologist. It is possible to distinguish two kinds of neural networks. One of them is responsible for emotional assessment of a situation, while another one deals with rational approach. To make a moral decision often means to refuse from personal benefits and sacrifice pleasure. The choice depends on the level of activity of the two neural networks. Thus, some people tend to make moral decisions while others prefer to behave in a selfish way just because of the structure and function of their brain (Bush, 2007). Although people prefer to think they are conscious of their own decisions, studies in neuropsychology show that brain activity may let researches know which decision is going to be taken 8 seconds earlier than a person becomes conscious of it. Thus, personal integrity may be regarded only an illusion, experienced by people, trying to hold control over their life. That is what becomes a matter of argument between neuropsychologists and representatives of other psychology branches, supporting the idea that people are masters of their mind. However, moral decision making is still one of the central issues of moral psychology. A decision may be regarded a moral one when it is based on principles of morality, which in its turn may be defined as “a system of rules that modifies our behavior in social situations. Its about the doing of good instead of harm, and it sets some standard of virtuous conduct” (MacDonald, 2002). Moral priorities are supposed to guide those people who face a certain dilemma. Individual moral experience of a person predetermines how humane and ethical decisions they may take would be. It is quite easy for people to take moral decisions in case they face simple problems or are to act in familiar circumstances. In these cases they may apply a standard set of actions in order to achieve certain results. However, people may sometimes face unfamiliar circumstances and realize they have no elaborated plan of actions. In this case most people prefer to follow their intuition. That is when moral experience of an individual is crucially important. It helps people orient in unfamiliar and controversial situations. What is more, it may help an individual find a solution even if they lack information while the decision is supposed to be taken immediately. Those who possess rich moral experience are able to take moral decisions even in challenging situations. What people resort to is moral intuition, which accumulates moral experience of a person. Earlier it was considered that moral decisions may be taken only by those people who possess a high level of moral consciousness. However, modern psychology doubts this statement. People are known to be sociable beings, that is why people hardly ever may let themselves act as individuals. As a rule, it is necessary to reckon with people around. That is why the influence of a group is so strong. And of course, it makes conformism a common-spread occurrence. It is really hard to resist group opinion, that is why a group may sometimes force a person make a moral decision. On the one hand, it is a much more common situation when a person refuses from moral decision just because all the other group members prefer to act in an immoral way. Thus, moral judgments and priorities of an individual may change in the context of group influence. At the same time, it is quite interesting to trace the way a group functions when is supposed to take a moral decision. However, there is slightly different approach. It is possible to say that the variety of choice is always predetermined by social conditions. Nevertheless, it does not matter how wide the range of choices is because the one a person makes will always reflect his or her level of morality. It may be shown on an example of cognitive approach, based on Kohlberg’s conception. Kohlberg insists that a person cannot regress from high level of morality to the lower one (Kohlberg, 1983). Kohlberg and his followers state that those people who are on lower stages of moral development may reconsider their moral priorities in case they are surrounded by people possessing high level of morality. In practice it means that a person of low moral values may come to a moral decision in case other group members demonstrate high levels of moral character. Logic and rational arguments, offered by people possessing rich moral experience, are supposed to become a decisive factor which may help other people develop strong moral character (Kohlberg, 1983). However, representatives of many other psychological branches doubt this. Participants of one experiment were supposed to solve a moral dilemma in the course of group discussion. The aim of the experiment was to find out how stable moral consciousness may be. One of the conclusions was that group context may predetermine the dynamics of an individual’s moral judgments. However, the tendency turned to be opposite to the one mentioned above. Participants with higher level of moral development found it more suitable to refuse from their own arguments and agree with the majority of the group, whose level of moral development was usually lover. The aim was probably to increase their status within a group. Such a phenomenon is incompatible with cognitive theory of morality. People with lower level of morality development preferred to occupy passive position when it came to their moral judgments. In other words, they preferred not to give attention to the arguments of other participants of the discussion. They could refuse to accept their mistakes even when their own position was totally deprived of any rational basis. At the same time, these participants did not want to look for some other arguments which could have supported their own position. Another interesting phenomenon is moral rigidity, demonstrated by participants with lover level of moral consciousness. It was very difficult for them to agree with opinions of the rest of the group. On the contrary, people of high moral values could do it easily. Thus, it is possible to make a conclusion that the level of moral consciousness does not necessarily depend on rationality of arguments and judgments. Although cognitive approach of moral psychology denies this statement, experimental results show that it is not correct to consider an individual level of moral development to be stable. It may depend on many factors. Opinions of other group members may be a decisive one. Nevertheless, representatives of many psychological branches agree that moral decision a person takes may be regarded a quintessence of his or her moral activity. However, in order to take a moral decision a person should be given at least a few alternatives. On the one hand, there should be a certain range of possible ways of acting. On the other hand, a person is supposed to be free to make a choice. It is impossible to talk about freedom of choice unless a person is given an opportunity to assess possible consequences of his or her actions. A person is supposed to be aware of all the possible variants, though their number is always limited. For instance, a person may act only within bounds of his or her physical abilities. Lack of education or financial situation may be good examples too. The number of choices a person may make is also limited due to social circumstances and status a person occupies in society. Some people fail to reach moral decision just because they are unaware of possible ways of acting. However, the number of available options is constantly increasing as personality develops. At the same time, it was proven that moral decisions are taken much faster than pragmatic ones, though the problematic issue may be the same (Van J. Bavel, 2012). For instance, hybrid cars. Some people may buy it because they take care about environment (this is an example of moral decision), while others just try to save money on fuel (an example of pragmatic decision). Researchers from New York University tried to compare these two types of decisions. There were two groups of people – one of them was offered to take decisions from the moral viewpoint, while another one was supposed to base on practical considerations. It gave researchers an opportunity to disregard specificity of a problem and concentrate on mechanisms of decision making only. Results showed that people tend to take moral decisions really fast. Besides, most participants were sure that a decision they made could have been suitable for any other people, facing the same circumstances. At the same time, people needed more time in order to make a pragmatic decision. However, decisions made on practical basis were deprived of such universal characteristics. Most participants accepted that other people may prefer to act in a different way since they may have other self-interests. In additions, as the journal Plos One reports, participants of the experiment could alter their opinions when asked to make their decisions on a different basis (Van J. Bavel, 2012). Thus, one and the same decision could have been immoral, but profitable. However, double standards and hypocrisy are common things for modern society, that is why there is nothing to be surprised about. Anyway, to find out which decision is moral and which one is not is often difficult even for those who possess rich moral experience and are ready to sacrifice their own interests for the sake of other people. A decision may be considered moral in case it corresponds to the following principles. These principles, elaborated by Kitchener, may be regarded a guide for decision making. Thus, the first one is autonomy. A person should be given an opportunity to choose and act the way he or she prefers. Nonmaleficence is the second principle. Its essence is to avoid causing harm to other people. This principle is sometimes considered to be a basic one, though all of them are of equal importance (Kitchener, 1984). Beneficence is number three. People are just supposed to be good and avoid doing harm when it is possible. Number four, justice, as defined by Kitchener, is "treating equals equally and unequals unequally but in proportion to their relevant differences". Finally, the sense of fidelity is to keep promises you make. That is how trust may be built up. Thus, to make a moral decision means to be conscious of possible consequences of a decision which is going to be taken. Those people who are ready to accept responsibility for their actions are likely to possess high level of moral development and be able to take moral decisions. However, the role of an individual is comparatively small in modern society, that is why it is unlikely to develop unless most of its members enrich their moral experience and learn how to act in a moral way. References Benton, Arthur (2000). History of Neuropsychology: Selected Papers. USA: Oxford. Chris MacDonald (2002). Moral Decision Making. Web. June 6, 2002. Retrived from: http://www.ethicsweb.ca/guide/moral-decision.html Leavitt, K., Reynolds, S., Barnes, C., Schilpzand, P., & S. Hannah. (2012). Different Hats, Different Obligations: Plural Occupational Identities and Situated Moral Judgments. Academy of Management Journal 55 (6), 1316-1333. Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 12(3), 43-55. Kohlberg L., Levine C., Hewer A. (1983). Moral stages: A current formulation and a response to critics Contributions to human development. Basel: Karger.  Shane S. Bush. (2007). Ethical Decision Making in Clinical Neuropsychology: American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology. (1st ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Bavel J., Packer D., Haas I., Cunningham W. (2012). The Importance of Moral Construal: Moral versus Non-Moral Construal Elicits Faster, More Extreme, Universal Evaluations of the Same Actions. PLoS ONE 7(11): e48693.  Read More