Moral reasoning is an idea that, although it may seem somewhat obvious, understood as the capacity to reason in the face of morally debatable situations, is an aspect of human beings that is still being investigated.

Several authors throughout history have tried to explain why we behave differently in situations where, even if we could make a purely objective decision, it would not convince us. Let’s see who they are and what has been understood what moral reasoning is and what are the characteristics that define it.

What is moral reasoning?

Moral reasoning is a concept derived from philosophy and developmental and experimental psychology, which refers to the capacity of human beings to carry out a critical analysis in the face of a given situation in which it is not possible to obtain a satisfactory response if this is done on the basis of purely logical criteria. It is a matter of applying one’s moral values to know whether to act in one way or another would be correct or not .

Moral reasoning can also be defined as the process in which individuals attempt to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong using logic. It is an everyday process, which sometimes manifests itself in a very subtle way, in situations that would not seem to us to involve moral processes. From a very early age, human beings are capable of making moral decisions about what we believe to be right or wrong.

It has been seen that everyday decisions, such as deciding what to wear, what to eat or say go to the gym, are quite similar to decisions in which moral reasoning has to be applied, such as deciding whether it is okay to lie, thinking about the appropriateness of recycling or daring to ask a loved one we see in a bad mood if he or she is okay.

Although moral reasoning is something we all apply in our daily lives, it is very difficult for us to explain why we have taken a certain decision, no matter how banal it may be . The idea of “moral stupefaction” has even been raised to describe those people who, although they carry out reasoning of this type, are not capable of explaining why they have decided to take a certain reason.

Many of the decisions we make that involve following moral laws or rules are not made logically , but on the basis of emotions. Decisions are influenced by internal aspects (e.g., prejudices) or external aspects (e.g., other people’s opinions, what they will say).

Moral Reasoning from Philosophy

Since the concept of moral reasoning implies the mobilization of our moral values, it is logical to think that the history of philosophy has tried to give an explanation to how people come to make the decisions that we make, and on the basis of which morals we move.

The philosopher David Hume commented that morality is based more on perceptions than on purely logical reasoning . This means that morality is based more on subjective aspects, clearly linked to feelings and emotions, than on a logical analysis of the given situation.

Another philosopher, Jonathan Haidt, also agrees with Hume, defending the idea that reasoning related to moral aspects comes as a consequence of an initial intuition, a purely subjective perception of the world around us. Moral intuitions imply moral judgments.

Immanuel Kant’s vision, however, is radically different . In his vision he considers that there are universal laws for morality, and that these can never be broken on their own. They must be broken because of emotions. That is why this philosopher proposes a four-step model to determine whether a moral decision or action has been taken from logic or not.

The first step of the method is to formulate “a maxim capturing the reason for an action”. The second step is to “think of action as a universal principle for all rational agents”. Then comes the third, “if the world based on this universal principle is conceivable. The fourth, to ask oneself “whether one would make this principle a maxim in this world. In essence, and in a less far-fetched way, an action is moral if the maxim can be universalized without the world becoming a chaotic environment.

For example, let’s think about whether or not it’s morally right to lie. To do this, we must imagine what would happen if everyone lied . Normally, people lie when they think they can get some kind of benefit from doing so, but if everyone lies, what is the benefit? We will assume that absolutely everything we are told is not true, so it would not be right to lie, according to Kant’s model.

Research from developmental psychology

From the last century onwards, the concept of moral reasoning has acquired a lot of importance within the field of psychology, with the views of the following authors being particularly important:

1. Jean Piaget

Jean Piaget proposed two phases in the development of morality . One of these phases would be common among children, and the other would be common among adults.

The first is called the Heteronomic Phase , and is characterized by the idea that rules are imposed by adult references, such as parents, teachers or the idea of God.

It also implies the idea that the rules are permanent, no matter what. In addition, included in this phase of development is the belief that all “naughty” behavior will always be punished, and that the punishment will be proportionate. It can be seen in this Piagetian approach that the child’s mind is characterized by the belief that one lives in a just world and that, when one does something wrong, it will be duly corrected.

The other phase within Piaget’s theory is the so-called Autonomous Phase , which is common after maturation.

In this phase, people see the intentions behind the actions of others more importantly than even their consequences. Importance is given to the act itself rather than its end, and that is why deontologies exist in the sciences (“the end does not justify the means”).

This phase includes the idea that people have different morals and therefore our criteria for determining what is right and what is wrong is very varied. There is no universal morality and justice is not something that remains static.

2. Lawrence Kohlberg

Lawrence Kohlberg, greatly influenced by Piagetian ideas, made very important contributions in the field of moral reasoning, creating the theory of the development of morality. His theory provides an empirical basis for the study of human decisions in carrying out ethical behavior.

Kohlberg is important in the history of psychology with respect to the scientific approach to what is understood by moral reasoning since, in research, it is his model that is usually used to understand the idea of this concept.

According to Kohlberg, the development of morality implies a maturation in which we take a less egocentric and more impartial conception with respect to themes of different complexity.

He believed that the aim of moral education was to encourage children who were at a particular stage of development to enter the next stage in a satisfactory manner. To this end, dilemmas could be a very useful tool for posing situations to children who need to use their moral reasoning.

According to his model, people must pass through three stages of moral development as they grow up, from early childhood to adulthood. These stages are the pre-conventional level, the conventional level and the post-conventional level , and each of them is divided into two levels.

In the first phase of the first stage, that is the pre-conventional level, there are two fundamental aspects to be taken into account: obedience and punishment. In this phase people, usually children who are still very young, try to avoid certain behaviors for fear of being punished. They try to avoid the negative response resulting from the punishable action.

In the second phase of the first stage, the fundamental aspects are individualism and exchange. In this phase people make moral decisions based on what best suits their needs .

The third phase is part of the next stage, the conventional level, and here interpersonal relationships take on importance. Here one tries to conform to what society considers moral, trying to present oneself to others as a good person who conforms to social demands.

The fourth phase, which is also in the second stage, advocates trying to maintain social order . This phase focuses on seeing society as a whole, and is about following its laws and rules.

The fifth stage is part of the post-conventional level, and this is called the phase of the social contract and individual rights. In this phase people begin to consider that there are different ideas about how morality is understood from person to person.

The sixth and final phase of moral development is called universal principles . In this phase people begin to develop their ideas of what is understood as moral principles, and consider them as something true regardless of the laws of society.

Controversy with gender differences

Given that behavioural differences between men and women have been seen, associated with differences in their personalities, the idea that there are different ways of reasoning morally according to gender was also raised .

Some researchers suggested that women would have a more sacrificial or needs-oriented mindset, implying a “caregiving” role, while men would be more focused on developing moral reasoning based on how fair and satisfying they are in fulfilling rights, implying more “fighting” roles.

However, others have suggested that these differences in moral reasoning between men and women, rather than being due to gender-specific factors would be due to the type of dilemmas that men and women face in their daily lives . Unfortunately, being a man and being a woman implies a different vision of how he is treated and also different types of moral dilemmas.

For this reason, in the area of research we have tried to see how moral reasoning occurs in laboratory conditions, the same for men and women, seeing that in reality, before the same moral dilemma, both genders behave in the same way, using the same moral reasoning.

Bibliographic references:

  • Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on Moral Development, Vol. I: The Philosophy of Moral Development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. ISBN 978-0-06-064760-5.
  • Piaget, J. (1932). El Juicio Moral del Niño. Londres: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co. ISBN 978-0-02-925240-6.
  • Nell, O., (1975). Actuando por principio: Un ensayo sobre la ética kantiana, Nueva York: Columbia University Press.
  • Haidt, J., (2001). “El perro emocional y su cola racional: Un enfoque social intuicionista del juicio moral”, Psychological Review, 108: 814-34.