The Moral Dimensions of Decision Making RCT presents a quantitative account of the logical aspects of rational decision making. Prospect Theory described some of the ways we actually make assessments of the probabilities and values which influence the choices we make. But our choices are also constrained and influenced by moral considerations and social norms.
Examples of Moral Constraints Sometimes we choose an option, not because it has the highest expected utility, but simply because it is “the right thing to do” or because the other option is “just out of the question”. Thus my mother would never run a red light, even on a deserted street at 4 am, not because she was worried about a cop seeing her, but simply because it was against the law. She did not seem to be maximizing her expected utility because she would sit there quite impatiently while waiting for the light to change.
The Case of Voting We will look in detail later at studies of voters’ decisions to go to the polls. On the face of it, if the election is not close and if the weather is quite bad and the polling station difficult to reach, it’s hard to come up with an expected utility explanation of why anyone should bother to vote. They seem instead to be acting out of duty.
Whose Utilities? Valuable to Whom? Neither expected utility calculations not Prospect Theory give us a graceful way of including altruistic elements into our evaluations of options. Suppose I choose the menu when I cook dinner partly on the basis of what I think the rest of the family will enjoy. Our models so far can only include this factor by assuming that it makes me happy to see them happy. There is no direct way to include the value to them in an analysis of my decision.
Adding in Moral Considerations We will begin with a developmental psychologist’s attempt to describe how people reason about moral dilemmas. Larry Kohlberg thought that the ways we reason about moral issues developed systematically over time in definite stages. Just as we crawl before we walk and learn regular verb forms before irregular ones, so children progress from self-centered schemes of instrumental morality to moral systems that take into account the needs and rights of other people.
How We Will Use Kohlberg’s Theory As an empirical account of the development of people’s moral reasoning, Kohlberg’s theory is certainly flawed and incomplete. It is even less adequate as an account of the moral actions of either children or adults. However, it will serve us well as a typology of some of the typical ways in which people actually do introduce moral considerations into their thinking about decisions.
Crude Overview of Kohlberg’s Six Stages Level A: Preconventional Morality (Other people are viewed either as sources of authority/punishment or as means to one’s own ends.) Stage 1. Do what you want right now unless someone is going to clobber you. Stage 2. Get what you want, but sometimes it pays to make deals with other people.
Stage 1 Responses Heinz should steal the drug because his wife is probably going to hit him if he doesn’t do it right away because she told him to go steal it. Heinz should not steal the drug because the policeman will probably come and take him to jail if he goes out and breaks into the drugstore.
Stage 2 Responses It depends on how much he likes his wife and how nice she is to him. He should tell her to be nicer to him and then he’ll go steal it for her. Heinz would probably miss his wife a lot but that’s not as bad as going to jail! Besides he can find someone else to be his best friend and to go canoeing with him.
Level B: Conventional Morality In upper elementary school children gradually become very concerned about what other people think about them and they also start genuinely caring about the feelings and welfare of other people. Stage 3: Do what a “nice boy” or “good girl” would do. Stage 4: Respect the rules of our society. If you’re inclined to break a rule, think about the consequences if everyone did it!
Stage 3 Responses All of Heinz’s buddies would think he was really a bad husband if he wasn’t even brave enough to steal the drug. They probably would stand watch for him. Nobody likes a thief! If Heinz stole the drug and anyone found out, his reputation would be ruined. Stealing is just wrong - period.
Stage 4 Responses Although Heinz properly wants to save his wife in the worst way, he can’t so easily ignore the fact that our system of law and order would collapse if everyone stole whenever they wanted to or even whenever they needed to! And in the end he wouldn’t get away with it. Remember Les Miserables! There’s a law against stealing but our society also recognizes the sanctity of marriage vows which obligate one to take responsibility for the well-being of a spouse. Here the duty to save the life of a spouse overrides the prohibition against stealing.
Level C: Postconventional, Principled Morality Stage 5: The laws and conventions of a society sometimes have to be overridden by considerations of justice and fairness that form the basis of civilization. Stage 6: There are universal ethical principles of human rights and the dignity of human beings that are binding on all people at all times and in all places.
Stage 5 Response There is no existing social norm which dictates the correct action for Heinz in this case. Just as we sometimes have to resort to civil disobedience when the laws of the land are unjust, so we sometimes have to secretly break the law when higher values are at stake. Certainly the druggist has a legitimate claim to be reimbursed, but human life is more important than protecting private property.
Stage 6 Response A respect for human life and the right to live in a state of freedom and dignity is one of those ultimate ethical principles by which we all must live. As Kant put it: Two things never fail to fill me with awe - the laws of the starry heavens without and the moral law within. (Paraphrased from memory.)