The Importance of Context in Moral Judgments

Abstract

There is a gap between morality as experienced and morality as studied. In our personal and professional lives, moral judgments are embedded within a specific context. We know the who, what, where, and when and often can infer the why; we know the broader context of actions; and we may have a specific relationship with the actors. However, scholarly theorizing is often built on inferences from participants’ responses to decontextualized, impoverished stimuli. In our quest for uncovering general psychological truths, moral psychologists have examined evaluations of poorly guarded trolleys, strangers with odd sexual proclivities, and endorsement of abstract principles. The four articles included in this section demonstrate the power of contextualizing morality. In the current article, I place these papers within a broader framework for how scholars can contextualize morality research. I then argue why contextualizing morality matters: not only do contextualized questions better reflect the nuances of reality but also contextualized judgments might be key for improving predictions of moral behavior and understanding moral change.

Moral Judgment as Categorization (MJAC)

“…Proponents of TDM argue that even in ostensibly harmless moral transgressions people perceive harm (Gray et al, 2014), and that this perception of harm is what guides participants judgments in moral dumbfounding scenarios (Schein, 2020;Schein & Gray, 2018). Dumbfounding is displayed when people maintain a moral judgment in the absence of a means of justifying their judgment, usually evoked by vignettes of supposedly "harmless wrongs" such as consensual incest or cannibalism of an already-dead body (Haidt et al, 2000;McHugh et al, 2017).…”

“…MJAC assumes that moral judgments are dynamical and context-dependent, and as such it is the approach that is best positioned to understand the diverse contextual influences on moral judgment. It is beyond the scope of the current paper to describe and account for all the known contextual influences on moral judgment (e.g., an incomplete list would include: Bostyn et al(e.g., an incomplete list would include: Bostyn et al, 2018;Christensen et al, 2014;Christensen & Gomila, 2012;Costa et al, 2014;Cushman et al, 2012;Everett et al, 2016Everett et al, , 2018Forbes, 2018;Francis et al, 2016Francis et al, , 2017Lee & Holyoak, 2020;Petrinovich & O'Neill, 1996;Rozin et al, 1999Rozin et al, , 2008Schein, 2020;Timmons & Byrne, 2019;Uhlmann et al, 2015;Valdesolo & DeSteno, 2006;Vasquez et al, 2001;Vasudev & Hummel, 1987). However, MJAC predicts understanding these diverse context effects depends on (a) accounting the learning history (e.g., in the cases of emotional influences and the foreign language effect) and, (b)…”

“…viewing moral categorization as occurring as part of goal-directed activity (e.g., categorization of actor versus action discussed above). Incorporating both of these considerations into a program of research inevitably leads to attempts to make the study of moral judgment reflective of real-world moral decision making (Bauman et al, 2014;Bostyn et al, 2018;Gilligan, 1977Gilligan, , 1993Hester & Gray, 2020;Hofmann et al, 2014;Schein, 2020;Watkins, 2020).…”

“…It is worth noting that this sensitivity to context of moral judgment implies that the importance of understanding moral judgments in more real life contexts rather than through the study of abstract decontextualized dilemmas has been well documented (e.g., Bauman et al, 2014;Bostyn et al, 2018;Gilligan, 1977Gilligan, , 1993Hester & Gray, 2020;Hofmann et al, 2014;Schein, 2020;Watkins, 2020). By focusing specifically on context sensitive categorizations occurring as part of goal-directed activity MJAC offers a framework for attempting to make the study of moral judgments more reflective of the making of moral judgments in everyday life.…”

How social relationships shape moral wrongness judgments

“…A number of theorists have highlighted relational context as likely to be important for understanding moral judgment and behavior (9,11,(14)(15)(16)(17). In line with these developments, there is now a small but growing empirical literature which explores how moral judgments vary across different types of social relationships (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31).…”