Talk:Moral psychology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

DYK nomination

• Template:Did you know nominations/Moral Psychology

Definitions of "moral psychology"

I'm surprised this hasn't really become an issue yet, but we should be careful about the definition of the term "moral psychology" (and so the description of the field). It seems that psychologists tend to use the term more narrowly to refer to moral development (a la Kohlberg, Piaget, etc.), whereas philosophers tend to use it more broadly to include the intersection of topics on the mind and topics on ethics. We should keep this entry and discussion of it compromising and civil. To that end, I've tried to avoid conflict by stating right up front in the entry that there are these two uses. - Jaymay (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

What ought to be covered?

Hello, I am interested in this subject and I am planning to expand this article, but i'm not sure what topics ought to be given coverage. I am familiar with Kohlburg's stages of moral development and evolutionary explanations for altruism such as inclusive fitness, and I can write sections on that. Philosophers like Marx and Hobbes ought to also have their views included. However, I am sure there are numerous other perspectives in this field that ought to be included. Any suggestions? CuttingEdge 22:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am relatively new to this topic; but what does Marx and Hobbes have to do with Moral Psychology? I'm intrigued, to be honest.

I might add to this entry. A fair bit if I have the time. Currently I'm drawing on Moral Psychology as my dissertation on the Neural Basis of Morality spilled over into this topic. I have with me a copy of Moral Psychology Volume 3: Neuroscience of Morality just recently published by SInnott-Armstrong. I am incredibly enthused by this avenue of empirical research into morality and will endeavour to commit prose to this entry.

Topics for consideration: --79.64.19.54 (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a ton of topics in this field. I think we should probably limit how much is actually discussed in this article. We can simply provide brief summaries and links to the main articles on the topics. I just did a pretty major edit to the article. I tried to provide a short summary of the field up top with some major figures noted. I then moved some of the historical stuff to a history section (I think people should be able to read the summary or intro of the entry and just get a summary it, not the history). I then provided a column-based list of topics; and I added some topics myself. - Jaymay (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of information in the article and the repetition of some of the information makes it seem as though the article is spewing out more information than it actually is. I am interested in doing some more research on this topic to conduct a discussion, however I was seeing a repetition of all types of information. If the information is condensed and detailed it would allow for users to more easily make edits and process the information. BMcInerney8792 (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

A note on certain topics: I've noticed that some tend to characterize the field of moral psychology to only include topics that are highly empirical in nature. However, many still cover other things in their work and in moral psychology courses in philosophy departments, such as the debate about the Humean theory of motivation and the motivational internalism debate. I'm thinking of the work of people like Michael Smith, R. Jay Wallace, and others. I think that we shouldn't leave such topics in the dark in the entry, even if they don't really discuss empirical work. The topics are still, after all, relevant to moral psychology. - Jaymay (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Resources for further edits

With respect to resources and topics that might be considered for expanding this entry, here are a couple:

(1) the other two books of the Sinnot-Armstrong series will likely be helpful, as well (as they cover different areas of the discussion).

(2) a wonderfully comprehensive book on pre-1996 Moral Psychology is Dan Lapsly's (1996) book entitled (...wait for it...) "Moral Psychology". This book actually provides many of the theories that I will try to list below.

(3) here is a list of major theories in the Moral Psychology Literature:

• Jean Piaget's Genetic Epistemological Theory of moral development
• Lawrence Kohlberg's Cognitive Developmental stage theory of moral development
• Gus Blasi's "Self Theory" of Moral Development (see Blasi, 1981, 1984)
• Eliot Turiel's "Domain Theory" (which suggests that we do not simply view the world in terms of morality, but also in terms of custom and personal preference)
• Dan Lapsley's and Darcia Narvaez's Social Cognitive approach to morality
• Jonathan Haidt's Social Intuitionist Model of moral judgment
• Marc Hauser's linguistic analogy

I am planning on teaching a course on this in the Fall, and hope to add to this page when I get time, but I appreciate your willingness to get the page started. Rossford (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy and Moral Psychology

This article needs desperate elaboration. The claim that philosophers have ignored empirical data is misleading. For instance, Hume was a moral psychologist who did not ignore empirical data. Kant struggled to embrace both the empirical data and his normative intuitions. Aristotle employed empirical methods when investigating happiness (ask people what they think) and so forth.

I agree that a list of major theories would be helpful.

It might also be useful to discuss some of the issues that philosophers have thought were relevant: the role of emotions in moral judgments, motivational internalism and externalism, the normativity of feelings (issues of shame, survivor guilt, and so forth). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.249.51.185 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster. It's also worth pointing out that moral psychology is a thriving area of modern philosopher, with most philosophy departments having at least one prof. working in this area. A small list of major living figures in this area would include John Doris, Harry Frankfurt, Alfred Mele, Kristine Korsgaard, Susan Wolf, Nomy Arpaly, Bernard Williams, Daniel Dennett, Shaun Nichols, Patricia Churchland, Ish Haji, Fischer and Ravizza, Michael Bratman, and hundreds of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.16.224 (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Philosophers ignore empirical data?

I find it a gross mis-characterization of the work philosophers do in this area to say that they "ignore" empirical data. Historically, most philosophers working on moral psychology have worked a priori instead of undertaking empirical research. This, however, is not ignoring the empirical: they couldn't successful propose a theory that is contrary to known experiential data. Further, with the current emergence of experimental philosophy as a movement, many philosophers are undertaking empirical research programs or paying close attention to publications in scientific journals on these matters. PubliusNemo April 28, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 15:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the previous poster. It is a gross misrepresentation of what philosophers actually do, and have done, to claim that we have historically ignored 'empirical' data. Aristotle, one of the early moral psychologists was also one of the earliest empirical scientists. And moral psychology, as it is studied by both philosophers and psychologists, nowadays, is heavily interdisciplinary, with many philosophers conducting experiments, and both philosophers and psychologists paying close attention to what the other discipline is doing in this area. The entire first paragraph of this entry is extremely misleading about the history of both philosophy and psychology as disciplines, ands shows a fair bit of ignorance about both disciplines in general. It should at least be heavily edited, but ideally it should be cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.16.224 (talk) 04:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly it's ridiculous to say philosophers ignore the empirical data. That's actually probably true of many philosophers, unfortunately. But it's also true of many psychologists (and other empirical scientists) that they ignore the philosophy. The problem is a lack of interdisciplinary work. But that is changing a lot lately. But, regardless, any negative stuff (like saying who is ignoring what) should not be stated in an encyclopedia entry. - Jaymay (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Revisions

I edited the section of moral reasoning by rewriting some sentences that were not structured right. I also fixed basic punctuation, like capitalizing the first letter of each sentence and writing out numbers as needed.--Jessicaloyd27 (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Relevant Research: 1. Katz, S. (1997). Secular morality. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and Health (pp. 295-330). New York, NY: Routledge. 2. Helweg-Larsen, M., Tobias, M. R., & Cerban, B. M. (2010). Risk perception and moralization among smokers in the USA and Denmark: A qualitative approach. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 871-886. 3. Brandt, A. M. (2004). Difference and diffusion: Cross-cultural perspectives on the rise of anti-tobacco policies. In E. A. Feldman & R. Bayer (Eds), Unfiltered: Conflicts over tobacco policy and public health (pp. 255-380). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 4. Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action?. Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212-218. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x 5. Teper, R., Inzlicht, M., & Page-Gould, E. (2011). Are we more moral than we think?: Exploring the role of affect in moral behavior and moral forecasting. Psychological Science, 22(4), 553-558. doi:10.1177/0956797611402513 6. Bell, K., McNaughton, D., & Salmon, A. (2009). Medicine, morality and mothering: Public health discourses on foetal alcohol exposure, smoking around children and childhood overnutrition. Critical Public Health, 19(2), 155-170. doi:10.1080/09581590802385664 7. Rozin, P., & Singh, L. (1999). The moralization of cigarete smoking in the United States. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 339-342. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0803_07 8. de Groot, J. M., & Steg, L. (2010). Morality and nuclear energy: Perceptions of risks and benefits, personal norms, and willingness to take action related to nuclear energy. Risk Analysis, 30(9), 1363-1373. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01419.x 9. Forney, W., Crutsinger, C., & Forney, J. (2006). Self-Concepts and Self-Worth as Predictors of Self-Perception of Morality: Implications for Delinquent Risk Behavior Associated With Shoplifting. Family And Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 35(1), 24-43. doi:10.1177/1077727X06289640 10. Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety Science, 44(8), 689-700. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.02.001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidsa (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Moral psychology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Elektrik Shoos (talk · contribs) 04:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   As indicated by the cleanup tags already on the article, copyediting for spelling and grammar is needed throughout the article. The article also has two introductions, for some reason. The reference style used is inconsistent, which can confuse the reader looking to verify sources in the article. It reads like an essay and needs to be rewritten with an encyclopedic tone.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are outstanding {{citation needed}} tags in the article which have yet to be addressed. The list of references largely points to print media and publications in journals behind paywalls, so I'm not immediately able to assess the quality of these sources. However, a few sections, namely the "Background" and "Cultural values" sections, appear to engage in synthesis, a form of original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Articles should be simply reporting on facts already published in outside sources, and not advancing new ideas.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Since I'm not a expert in the field, I can't speak to the exact coverage needed by this article. However, it appears to do an adequate job at covering the key aspects of moral psychology. That said, formatting and tone issues as described above make it difficult to gauge the full extent of the article's coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   This particular criteria isn't really applicable here, as I find it difficult to think of many images which would be appropriate here.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Unfortunately, the article still has a way to go before meeting the criteria for a good article.