Moral Judgments: Do We Feel Before We Think?

Do you think that it is a woman's right to choose if she wants an abortion or are you pro-life? Do you think people should be able to have as many guns as they like or that we need increased gun regulation? Is Obamacare good for the country or is it catering in the end of America? These are all hot-button moral issues that have polarized our nation, with people on both sides claiming they are right and the other side is dead wrong. And if you ask proponents on any of these issues to explain to you why they are right, they will likely passionately provide you with a list of logical reasons that support their position. But have they truly arrived at their position based on logic, or are their emotions playing a part? As it turns out, it might be that their emotions are calling the shots far more than they would like to believe.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has conducted extensive research on how individuals arrive at conclusions regarding moral issues. His research suggests that people come to their positions on moral issues more by emotional intuition than logical reasoning. He calls this tendency for moral judgments to be drawn from emotional reactions "social intuitionism." Haidt claims that what actually happens is that we have emotional reactions to moral situations that provide us with our position, and that we then use logical thinking and reasoning post hoc to try to explain why we feel the way we do. So it appears that we in fact are making our decisions using emotion and then trying to justify why we think the way we do logically afterwards. Haidt displays this process beautifully in studies where he produces "moral dumbfounding," where people have strong emotional reactions to moral situations, but cannot provide logical reasons to support their position.

This can be unsettling to some, to the point that they do not want to believe that it is true. There is a strong bias to favor being logical and rational over being "emotional and irrational" in our society. People want to feel that their positions on significant moral issues are based on sound, logical reasoning and not some kind of emotional reaction. However, the evidence suggests that this is not the case. As a result, we must be aware that our moral conclusions should not be considered unchangeable as they are influenced by our emotional reactions, not pure logical reasoning. Haidt also finds that our automatic emotional reactions can evolve over time through discourse and interaction with the subject at hand. This should inspire us to engage in open, collaborative discourse regarding moral issues in order to reach better conclusions both for society and ourselves. And remember, your passion for your position on an issue might be more about your feelings than logical reasoning.