Moralities We Live by: Moral Focusing in the Context of Technological Change

  • Nicole Kronberger

Abstract

Westerners might wonder why people in India are starving when there are cows lined up at the roadsides. At first sight it looks as if values, or moral rules vary considerably. Often, however, such variation is not due to a difference in moral maxims but rather to a difference in beliefs (Rachels 1993), or moral focusing i.e., the implementation of a general rule in a concrete cultural context. Both people from India and the West agree that we should not remain hungry, suffer from malnutrition or starve to death; they may differ, however, in their assessment of whether the outdoor cow is potential food or a sacred symbol, a “holy cow”.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Axelrod LJ, McDaniels T, Slovic P (1999) Perceptions of ecological risk from natural hazards. J Risk Res 2:31–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger P (1973) On the obsolescence of the concept of honour. In: Berger P, Merger B, Kellner H (Eds) The homeless mind. Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp 78–89Google Scholar
  3. Bergmann J, Luckmann T (1999) Morals and communication (Moral und Kommunikation). In: Bergmann J, Luckmann T (Eds) Kommunikative Konstruktion von Moral. Band 1: Struktur und Dynamik der Formen moralischer Kommunikation. Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp 13–36Google Scholar
  4. Bohnsack R (2000) Reconstructive social research. Introduction to methodology and practice of qualitative research (Rekonstruktive Sozialforschung. Einführung in Methodologie und Praxis qualitativer Forschung), 4th Edn. Leske + Budrich, OpladenGoogle Scholar
  5. D’Andrade RG (1990) Culture and personality: a false dichotomy. In: Jordon DK, Swartz MJ (Eds) Personality and the cultural construction of society. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp 145–160Google Scholar
  6. Durkheim E (1955) The elementary forms of the religious life. Free Press, New York (Original: 1912)Google Scholar
  7. Fiske AP (1991) Structures of social life. The four elementary forms of human relations. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Fiske AP, Tetlock PE (1997) Taboo trade-offs: reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Polit Psychol 18:255–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaskell G, Bauer MW (Eds) (2001) Biotechnology 1996–2000. The years of controversy. Science Museum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Habermas J (2001) The future of human nature. On the way to liberal eugenics? (Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weg zu einer liberalen Eugenik?) Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  11. Haidt J (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: a social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychol Rev 108:814–834PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haslam N (Ed) (2004) Relational models theory: a contemporary overview. Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates, Mahwah NJGoogle Scholar
  13. Haslam N, Rothschild L, Ernst D (2002) Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? Br J Soc Psychol 41:87–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hutchby I, Wooffitt R (1998) Conversation analysis. Principles, practices and applications. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age (Das Prinzip Verantwortung. Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation). Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  16. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous things. What categories reveal about the mind. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago ILGoogle Scholar
  17. Mangold W (1960) Subject and method of the group discussion procedure (Gegenstand und Methode des Gruppendiskussionsverfahrens). Europäische Verlagsanstalt, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  18. Marková I (2000) Amédée or how to get rid of it: social representations from a dialogical perspective. Cult Psychol 6:419–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McGraw AP, Tetlock PE (2005) Taboo trade-offs, relational framing, and the acceptability of exchanges. J Consum Psychol 15:2–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moloney G, Walker I (2000) Messiahs, pariahs, and donors: the development of social representations of organ transplants. J Theory Soc Behav 30:203–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moscovici S (2001) Why a theory of social representations? In: Deaux K, Philogène G (Eds) Representations of the social. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 8–35Google Scholar
  22. Nerlich B, Clarke DD, Dingwall R (2000) Clones and crops: the use of stock characters and word play in two debates about bioengineering. Metaph Symb 15:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Potter J, Wetherell M (1987) Discourse and social psychology. Beyond attitudes and behaviour. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Quine WV (1969) Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Rachels J (1993) The elements of moral philosophy, 2nd Edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Rothbart M, Taylor M (1992) Category labels and social reality: do we view social categories as natural kinds? In: Semin GR, Fiedler K (Eds) Language, interaction and social cognition. Sage, London, pp 11–36Google Scholar
  27. Royzman EB, Sabini J (2001) Something it takes to be an emotion: the interesting case of disgust. J Theory Soc Behav 31:29–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rozin P (1999) The process of moralization. Psychol Sci 10:218–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rozin P, Lowery L, Imada S, Haidt J (1999) The CAD triad hypothesis: a mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). J Pers Soc Psychol 76:574–586PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schütz H, Wiedemann PM, Gray PCR (1999) The intuitive evaluation of genetically modified products — cognitive and interactive aspects (Die intuitive Beurteilung gentechnischer Produkte — kognitive und interaktive Aspekte). In: Hampel J, Renn O (Eds) Gentechnik in der Öffentlichkeit: Wahrnehmung und Bewertung einer umstrittenen Technologie. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, pp 133–169Google Scholar
  31. Smelser NJ (1998) The rational and the ambivalent in the social sciences. Am Sociol Rev 63:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tetlock PE, Kristel OV, Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS (2000) The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J Pers Soc Psychol 78:853–870PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wagner W (1998) Social representations and beyond: brute facts, symbolic coping and domesticated worlds. Cult Psychol 4:297–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wagner W, Hayes N (2005) Everyday discourse and common sense. The theory of social representations. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Wagner W, Duveen G, Farr R, Jovchelovitch S, Lorenzi-Cioldi F, Marková I, Rose D (1999) Theory and method of social representations. Asian J Soc Psychol 2:95–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wagner W, Kronberger N, Seifert F (2002) Collective symbolic coping with new technology: knowledge, images and public discourse. Br J Soc Psychol 41:323–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zelizer VA (1994) Pricing the priceless child. Princeton University Press, Princeton NJGoogle Scholar
  38. Zerubavel E (1997) Social mindscapes. An invitation to cognitive sociology. Harvard University Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicole Kronberger
    • 1
  1. 1.Johannes Kepler University LinzLinzAustria

Personalised recommendations