Skip to main content

Moral Argumentation Skills and Aggressive Behavior. Implications for Philosophical Ethics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dual-Process Theories in Moral Psychology
  • 720 Accesses

Abstract

Much recent research on moral judgment making has focused on quick one-shot judgments. Explicit reasoning has been shown to play a minor role in these cases. However, these results do not generalize to real moral conduct that often includes the iterative adaptation of long-term behavioral strategies. I suggest using school bullying as an ecologically valid model for moral conduct and refer to studies that show that moral reasoning competence is negatively correlated to immoral aggressive behavior. Taken together, these results suggest a rather strict division of labor between reasoning on the one hand and automatic processes on the other hand. I suggest that moral reasoning is part of a long-term learning process, which sets the parameters for quick intuitive decision making. Philosophical ethics can play an important role by systematizing and reflecting this learning process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle (2014). Nicomachean Ethics (trans: C.D.C. Reeve). Indianapolis, Cambridge: Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54, 462–479. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The Measurement of Moral Judgement: Volume 2, Standard Issue Scoring Manual. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craigie, J. (2011). Thinking and feeling: Moral deliberation in a dual-process framework. Philosophical Psychology 24(1), 53–71. doi:10.1080/09515089.2010.533262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, F., Young, L., & Hauser, M. (2006). The Role of Conscious Reasoning and Intuition in Moral Judgment: Testing Three Principles of Harm. Psychological Science 17(12), 1082–1089. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01834.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, F., Murray, D., Gordon-McKeon, S., Wharton, S., & Greene, J. D. (2011). Judgment before principle: engagement of the frontoparietal control network in condemning harms of omission. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 7(8), 888–895. doi:10.1093/scan/nsr072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlkamp, J., Friedmann, J., Ulrich, A., & Windmann, A. (2013). Ich oder keiner. Der Spiegel 2013(11), pp. 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dancy, J. (2006). Ethics Without Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doris, J. M. (2010). The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Modeling option and strategy choices with connectionist networks: Towards an integrative model of automatic and deliberate decision making. Judgment and Decision Making 3(3), 215–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D. (2001). An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgement. Science 203, 2105–2108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D. (2007). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), The Neuroscience of Morality: Emotion, Brain Disorders, and Development (pp. 35–79). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. D. (2014). Beyond point-and-shoot morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethics. Ethics 124(4), 695–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gummerum, M., Keller, M., Takezawa, M., & Mata, J. (2008). To Give or Not to Give: Children’s and Adolescents’ Sharing and Moral Negotiations in Economic Decision Situations. Child Development 79(3), 562–576. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01143.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4), 814–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295X. 108.4.814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: why good people are divided by politics and religion. London: Allen Lane.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., Björklund, F., & Murphy, S. (2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reasons. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (47), 55–130. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamburger Abendblatt (2011, August 25). U-Bahnschläger: Keiner half dem mutigen Retter. Hamburger Abendblatt. Retrieved from http://www.abendblatt.de/vermischtes/article2003639/U-Bahnschlaeger-Keiner-half-dem-mutigen-Retter.html.

  • Harman, G., Mason, K., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Doris, J. M. (2012). Moral Reasoning. In J.M. Doris et al. (Eds.), The Moral Psychology Handbook (pp. 206–245). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, M., Cushman, F., Young, L., Kang-Xing, J., & Mikhail, J. (2007). A Dissociation Between Moral Judgments and Justifications. Mind Language 22(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helion, C., & Pizarro, D. A. (in press). Beyond dual-processes: The interplay of reason and emotion in moral judgment. In N. Levy, & J. Clausen (Eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas, K. J., & Brandstätter, V. (2004). Zivilcourage. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie 35(4), 185–200. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.35.4.185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, K. (2003). Emotion, weakness of the will and the normative conception of agency. In A. Hatzimoysis (Ed.), Philosophy and the Emotions (pp. 181–200). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kahane, G. (2012). On the Wrong Track: Process and Content in Moral Psychology. Mind & language 27(5), 519–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment (pp. 49–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (2012). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (trans: M. Gregor & J. Timmermann). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1785).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennett, J., & Fine, C. (2008). Will the Real Moral Judgment Please Stand Up? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12, 77–96. doi:10.1007/s10677-008-9136-4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killen, M. (2007). Children’s Social and Moral Reasoning About Exclusion. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16(1), 32–36. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00470.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on Moral Development. Vol. II: The Psychology of Moral Development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1983). The Relationship of Moral Judgment to Moral Action. In L. Kohlberg (Ed.), The Psychology of Moral Development: The Nature and Validity of Moral Stages (pp. 498–581). San Francisco: Harper & Row Publishers [1984].

    Google Scholar 

  • Korsgaard, C. M. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy-Suhl, M. (1912). Die Prüfung der sittlichen Reife jugendlicher Angeklagter und die Reformvorschläge zum §56 des deutschen Strafgesetzbuches. Zeitschrift für Psychotherapie 232–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, G. (2003). Moral ist lehrbar: Handbuch zur Theorie und Praxis moralischer und demokratischer Bildung. München: Oldenbourg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, G. (2008). The meaning and measurement of moral judgment competence. A dual-aspect model. In D. Fasko & W. Willis (Eds.), Contemporary philosophical and psychological perspectives on moral development and education (pp. 185–220). Creskill: Hampton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lind, G. (2009). Moral Judgment Test (MJT) – English Version. Available from the author upon request (contact: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/ag-moral/mut/mjt-engl.htm).

  • May, J. (2014). Does Disgust Influence Moral Judgment? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 92(1), 125–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(02), 57–74. doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nucci, L. (1981). Conceptions of Personal Issues: A Domain Distinct from Moral or Societal Concepts. Child Development 52(1), 114–121. doi:10.2307/1129220

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunner-Winkler, G. (2009). Prozesse moralischen Lernens und Entlernens. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 55(4), 528–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at School: What we know and what we can do. Oxford, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paxton, J. M., Ungar, L., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgment. Cognitive Science 36(1), 163–177. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2011.01210.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (2007). Neuroscience and Agent Control. In D. Ross, D. Spurrett, H. Kincaid, & G. L. Stephens (Eds.), Distributed Cognition and the Will: Individual Volition and Social Context (pp. 77–91). Cambridge, Mass., London: A Bradford Book.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1997). The Moral Judgment of the Child (trans: M. Gabain). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1932.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, J. (2006). The Emotional Basis of Moral Judgement. Philosophical Explorations 9, 29–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Railton, P. (2009). Practical competence and fluent agency. In D. Sobel & S. Wall (Eds.), Reasons for action (pp. 81–115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, C. B., Mulvey, K. L., & Killen, M. (2012). Extending Social Domain Theory with a Process-Based Account of Moral Judgments. Human Development 55(1), 4–25. doi:10.1159/000335362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salmivalli, C., Lagerspetz, K., Björkqvist, K., Österman, K., & Kaukiainen, A. (1996). Bullying as a group process: Participant roles and their relations to social status within the group. Aggressive Behavior 22(1), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, H. (2012). Psychopaths and Filthy Desks. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15(1), 95–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, M., & Korn, S. (2004). Bullying als Gruppenphänomen. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und pädagogische Psychologie 36(1), 19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, M., Korn, S., Smith, P. K., Hunter, S. C., Mora-Merchán, J. A., Singer, M. M., & Meulen, K. (2004). Lonely in the crowd: Recollections of bullying. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 22(3), 379–394. doi:10.1348/0261510041552756.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäfer, M., von Grundherr, M., & Sellmaier, S. (in press). Mobbing. In J. Sautermeister (Ed.), Moralisches Können: Transdisziplinäre Perspektiven und ethische Herausforderungen der Moralpsychologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smetana, J. G. (2006). Social-cognitive domain theory: Consistencies and variations in children’s moral and social judgments. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 119–154). Mahwah: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwitzgebel, E., & Cushman, F. (2012). Expertise in Moral Reasoning? Order Effects on Moral Judgment in Professional Philosophers and Non-Philosophers. Mind & Language 27(2), 135–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. K., Singer, M., Hoel, H., & Cooper, C. L. (2003). Victimization in the school and the workplace: Are there any links? British Journal of Psychology 94(2), 175–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stams, G. J., Brugman, D., Deković, M., Rosmalen, L., Laan, P., & Gibbs, J. C. (2006). The Moral Judgment of Juvenile Delinquents: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 34(5), 692–708. doi:10.1007/s10802-006-9056-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2006). Manipulations of emotional context shape moral judgment. Psychological Science 17(6), 476–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Grundherr, M., Geisler, A., Stoiber, M. & Schäfer, M. (2015). School bullying and moral reasoning competence. Manuscript submitted for publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheatley, T., & Haidt, J. (2005). Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological science 16(10), 780–784.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, I., & Smith, P. K. (1993). A survey of the nature and extent of bullying in junior/middle and secondary schools. Educational Research 35(1), 3–25. doi:10.1080/0013188930350101.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael von Grundherr .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grundherr, M. (2016). Moral Argumentation Skills and Aggressive Behavior. Implications for Philosophical Ethics. In: Brand, C. (eds) Dual-Process Theories in Moral Psychology. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-12053-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics