Towards an Attempt to Unravel Normative Assumptions Implicit in Haidt’s Thought

Authors

  • Natalia Zavadivker Universidad Nacional de Tucumán / CONICET

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss19pp245-269

Keywords:

Haidt, moral intuitions, moral foundations, intuitionist-social model, conservative-liberal, normativity, adaptive value, evolutionary metaethics

Abstract

This article aims to investigate, starting from both the analysis of Haidt’s Theory of Moral Foundations, and his Intuitionist-social Model, if there is any implicit normative assumption in the author in relation to the value assigned to moral intuitions, both in relation to to its content and possible adaptive functionality (a matter developed in the FMT), as well as to the mechanisms that trigger such intuitions (a topic addressed in the SIM). An attempt is made to unravel whether the author, beyond considering emotional intuitions as the true cause of moral judgments, ascribes a positive or negative value to this situation. To this end, the motivations underlying various moral intuitions (both of biological roots, linked to various adaptive interests; and of social origin) are examined, in order to analyze Haidt’s contributions to the clarification of a problem of normative metaethics of great impact. at present: can the same normative weight be attributed to any moral foundation in force in human societies; or are only some orientations rational, and therefore morally justifiable? Do they all reveal genuine moral concerns, or do some reflect relevant but not specifically moral adaptive interests, or even selfish aspirations functional to the interests of hegemonic sectors? The implications of the FMT are analyzed as a valuable heuristic guide to interpret the moral concerns of conservatives from an evolutionary meta-ethical approach that allows to overcome the monism of the liberal ethical code, for which the spectrum of genuine moral concerns is reduced to questions of justice, rights and protection of the weakest (since only these would be rationally justifiable). The need to achieve a clearer articulation between the SIM, which puts more emphasis on the processes of acquisition of intuitions through learning and social interaction, and the FMT, that focuses on its content and its possible links with various adaptive interests.

References

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a Diferent Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 101, 366-385.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814-834.

Haidt, J., Graham, J. (2007). When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98-116.

Haidt, J. (2012). The rightheous mind: why good people are divided by political and religion. New York: Pantheon Books.

Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (2012). Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. Barcelona: Random House Modadori.

Kohlberg, L. (1968). The Child as a Moral Philosopher. Psychology Today, 2, 25-30.

Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and Sequence: The Cognitive-Developmental Approach to Socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research, pp. 347-480. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kohlberg, L. (1971). From Is to Ought: How to Commit the Naturalistic Fallacy and Get Away with It in the Study of Moral Development. In T. Mischel (Ed.), Psychology and Genetic Epistemology, pp. 151-235. New York: Academic Press.

Piaget, J. (1932/1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.

Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “big three” explanations of suffering. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health, pp. 119-169. London: Routledge.

Trivers, R. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Reviewof Biology, 46(1), 35-57.

Turiel, E. (1983). The Development of Social Knowledge: Morality and Convention. Cambridge. UK: Cambridge University Press.

Zavadivker, N. (2014a). Homo éticus. Las bases biológicas del comportamiento pro-social. San Miguel de Tucumán: La Monteagudo.

Zavadivker, N. (2014b). Acerca del valor adaptativo del asco moralizado desde una perspectiva evolucionista. Ideas y valores. Revista Colombiana de Filosofía, 154, 243-269.

Zavadivker, N. (2014c). Adaptación biológica y valor de verdad en creencias cognitivas y morales. Nuevas Fronteras de Filosofía Práctica, 2, 1-27.

Zavadivker, N. (2017). La delgada frontera entre las normas morales y las convenciones sociales. En Publicación Digital de las Actas del XVII Congreso AFRA 2015, pp. 1244-1251. Santa Fe: UNL.

Published

2022-05-30

How to Cite

Zavadivker, N. (2022). Towards an Attempt to Unravel Normative Assumptions Implicit in Haidt’s Thought. Revista De Humanidades De Valparaíso, (19), 245–269. https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv2022iss19pp245-269

Issue

Section

Monographic Section

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.