Humans are able to perceive others by moral standards, which means that people can perceive others not only based on their previous knowledge and experiences (e.g., stereotypes; Jussim, 1991), but can also evaluate targets’ actions in moral terms, including both universal and cultural norms about right and wrong. According to Haidt (2001), moral judgments are “evaluations (good vs. bad) of the actions or character of a person that are made with respect to a set of virtues held to be obligatory by a culture or subculture” (p. 817).
Social Intuitionist Approach
The social intuitionist approach generally assumes that moral judgments are automatic, immediate, and emotion based. According to Haidt (2001), “moral intuition can be defined as sudden …show more content…
For example, both brother and sister have turned 21 years old, both of them use birth control to rule out the negative genetic consequence of inbreeding, and both of them feel good about the violation and decide not to do it again, which rules out the possibility that one of them will get hurt either physically or mentally from such a violation. The participants then were asked to judge whether the behaviors between siblings were morally appropriate. Most of the participants think the action is morally wrong and “disgust”; however most of them cannot provide effective arguments to justify their decisions. Based on Haidt (1993, 2001)’s work, Cushman et al. (2006) also found that people thought harmful actions as means to a goal (e.g., save 5 people’s lives by purposely pulling the lever and drop a man off the footbridge to stop the moving train) were morally more wrong as compared to harmful actions as a foreseeable side effect to the goal (e.g., save 5 people’s lives by pulling the lever to change the direction of the moving train, however, as a side effect, one person will die). However, similar to Haidt (1993, 2001)’s study, participants could not offer specific reasonings for why they made such moral
Social Intuitionist Approach
The social intuitionist approach generally assumes that moral judgments are automatic, immediate, and emotion based. According to Haidt (2001), “moral intuition can be defined as sudden …show more content…
For example, both brother and sister have turned 21 years old, both of them use birth control to rule out the negative genetic consequence of inbreeding, and both of them feel good about the violation and decide not to do it again, which rules out the possibility that one of them will get hurt either physically or mentally from such a violation. The participants then were asked to judge whether the behaviors between siblings were morally appropriate. Most of the participants think the action is morally wrong and “disgust”; however most of them cannot provide effective arguments to justify their decisions. Based on Haidt (1993, 2001)’s work, Cushman et al. (2006) also found that people thought harmful actions as means to a goal (e.g., save 5 people’s lives by purposely pulling the lever and drop a man off the footbridge to stop the moving train) were morally more wrong as compared to harmful actions as a foreseeable side effect to the goal (e.g., save 5 people’s lives by pulling the lever to change the direction of the moving train, however, as a side effect, one person will die). However, similar to Haidt (1993, 2001)’s study, participants could not offer specific reasonings for why they made such moral