Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two Theories of Moral Cognition

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Does Neuroscience Have Normative Implications?

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 22))

  • 304 Accesses

Abstract

Moral cognition refers to the human capacity to experience and respond to situations of moral significance. Recently, philosophers and cognitive scientists have turned to reinforcement learning, a branch of machine learning, to develop formal, mathematical models of normative cognition. One prominent approach, proposed by Cushman (Curr Opin Behav Sci 3:58–62, 2015), suggests that moral cognition is underwritten by a habitual (‘model-free’) system, in conjunction with socially-learned moral rules. I argue that moral cognition instead depends on three or more decision-making systems, with interactions between the systems producing its characteristic sociological, psychological, and phenomenological features. Adopting such an approach allows us to not only better explain what is going on in everyday, ‘successful’ instances of moral judgment and action, but also to more reliably predict, and perhaps thereby counter, routine breakdowns in moral behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Reinforcement learning is an area in machine learning that aims to understand how agents learn to maximize rewards through interactions with their environments, i.e., how they learn through reinforcement, rather than through training on supervised data sets (Sutton and Barto 2018).

  2. 2.

    This example is loosely based on controversial remarks made by Guido Barilla, of Barilla pasta, in 2013. The company has since improved its record on LGBTQ rights (Somashekhar 2014).

  3. 3.

    By cognition, I mean the general functioning of the mind, rather than the narrower mental processes associated with understanding and knowledge. Moral cognition here refers to our capacity for lay moral experience, including the experience of moral emotions such as anger or shame. In other branches of philosophy, moral cognition is sometimes referred as moral perception; however, this latter term has technical connotations that I do not want to import in the discussion here (for a review, see McGrath 2018).

  4. 4.

    This latter, deliberation-based form of moral cognition is different from a still third kind of moral capacity, namely, moral reasoning or debate – the sort of reasoning on display in the pages of philosophy journals, where we aim to develop general and intermediate moral principles, defend and apply them, and so on.

  5. 5.

    I owe this formulation to Crockett (2013).

References

  • Bicchieri, C. 2006. The Grammar of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair, R.J.R. 1995. A Cognitive Developmental Approach to Morality: Investigating the Psychopath. Cognition 57 (1): 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2017. Emotion-Based Learning Systems and the Development of Morality. Cognition 167: 38–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouton, M.E. 2006. Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis. Sunderland: Sinauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, P.L., and H.M. Jenkins. 1968. Auto-Shaping of the Pigeon’s Key-Peck. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 11 (1): 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R., and V. Kumar. 2012. Moral Reasoning on the Ground. Ethics 122 (2): 273–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crockett, M.J. 2013. Models of Morality. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17 (8): 363–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2016. How Formal Models Can Illuminate Mechanisms of Moral Judgment and Decision Making. Current Directions in Psychological Science 25 (2): 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crockett, M.J., L. Clark, M.D. Hauser, and T.W. Robbins. 2010. Serotonin Selectively Influences Moral Judgment and Behavior Through Effects on Harm Aversion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (40): 17433–17438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crockett, M.J., J.Z. Siegel, Z. Kurth-Nelson, P. Dayan, and R.J. Dolan. 2017. Moral Transgressions Corrupt Neural Representations of Value. Nature Neuroscience 20 (6): 879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crone, E.A., and M.W. van der Molen. 2004. Developmental Changes in Real Life Decision Making: Performance on a Gambling task Previously Shown to Depend on the Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex. Developmental Neuropsychology 25 (3): 251–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, F. 2008. Crime and Punishment: Distinguishing the Roles of Causal and Intentional Analyses in Moral Judgment. Cognition 108 (2): 353–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. Action, Outcome, and Value: A Dual-System Framework for Morality. Personality and Social Psychology Review 17 (3): 273–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. From Moral Concern to Moral Constraint. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 3: 58–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, F., L. Young., and J. Greene. 2010. Multi-system Moral Psychology. In The Moral Psychology Handbook, ed. J. M. Doris and The Moral Psychology Research Group, 47–71. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’Arms, J., and D. Jacobson. 2014. Sentimentalism and Scientism. In Moral Psychology and Human Agency, ed. J. D’Arms and D. Jacobson. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daw, N.D., and J.P. O’Doherty. 2013. Multiple Systems for Value Learning. In Neuroeconomics: Decision Making, and the Brain, 393–410. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, N.D., and P.N. Tobler. 2014. Value Learning Through Reinforcement: The Basics of Dopamine and Reinforcement Learning. In Neuroeconomics, 2nd ed., 283–298. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———, N.D., Y. Niv, and P. Dayan. 2005. Uncertainty-Based Competition Between Prefrontal and Dorsolateral Striatal Systems for Behavioral Control. Nature Neuroscience 8 (12): 1704.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, P. 2011. Interactions Between Model-Free and Model-Based Reinforcement Learning,’ Seminar Series from the Machine Learning Research Group. University of Sheffield, Sheffield. Lecture recording. http://ml.dcs.shef.ac.uk/. Accessed Oct 2018.

  • ———. 2014. Rationalizable Irrationalities of Choice. Topics in Cognitive Science 6 (2): 204–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, P., and L.F. Abbott. 2001. Theoretical Neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, P., and K.C. Berridge. 2014. Model-Based and Model-Free Pavlovian Reward Learning: Revaluation, Revision, and Revelation. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 14 (2): 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, P., and N.D. Daw. 2008. Decision Theory, Reinforcement Learning, and the Brain. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 8 (4): 429–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dayan, P., and Y. Niv. 2008. Reinforcement Learning: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 18 (2): 185–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deneve, S., and A. Pouget. 2004. Bayesian Multisensory Integration and Cross-Modal Spatial Links. Journal of Physiology-Paris 98 (1–3): 249–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson, A., and B. Balleine. 2002. The Role of Learning in Motivation. In Learning, Motivation and Emotion, ed. C.R. Gallistel, 497–533. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doris, J.M. 2002. Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doris, J.M., and Moral Psychology Research Group. 2010. The Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford: OUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Doris, J., S. Stich, J. Phillips., & L. Walmsley. 2017. Moral Psychology: Empirical Approaches. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Winter 2017 Edition. Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/moral-psych-emp/

  • Driver, J. 2016. The Limits of the Dual-Process View. In Moral Brains: The Neuroscience of Morality, ed. S.M. Liao, 150–158. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Faure, A., U. Haberland, F. Condé, and N. El Massioui. 2005. Lesion to the Nigrostriatal Dopamine System Disrupts Stimulus-Response Habit Formation. Journal of Neuroscience 25 (11): 2771–2780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garbusow, M., C. Sommer, S. Nebe, M. Sebold, S. Kuitunen-Paul, H.U. Wittchen, et al. 2018. Multi-Level Evidence of General Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer in Alcohol Use Disorder. In Alcoholism-Clinical and Experimental Research, vol. 42, 128a. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, M.P., G. Schoenbaum, and S.J. Gershman. 2018. Rethinking Dopamine as Generalized Prediction Error. BioRxiv: 239731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glimcher, P.W., and E. Fehr, eds. 2013. Neuroeconomics: Decision-Making and the Brain. 2nd ed. Waltham: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J. 2013. Moral Tribes. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2014. Beyond Point-and-Shoot Morality: Why Cognitive (Neuro)Science Matters for Ethics. Ethics 124 (4): 695–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J.D. 2015. The Rise of Moral Cognition. Cognition 135: 39–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J.D., R.B. Sommerville, L.E. Nystrom, J.M. Darley, and J.D. Cohen. 2001. An fMRI Investigation of Emotional Engagement in Moral Judgment. Science 293 (5537): 2105–2108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, J. 2018. An Empirical Solution to the Puzzle of Weakness of Will. Synthese 12: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. 2012. The Righteous Mind. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., F. Bjorklund., & S. Murphy. 2000. Moral Dumbfounding: When Intuition Finds No Reason. Unpublished manuscript, University of Virginia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hershberger, W.A. 1986. An Approach Through the Looking-Glass. Animal Learning & Behavior 14 (4): 443–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huys, Q.J., N. Eshel, E. O’Nions, L. Sheridan, P. Dayan, and J.P. Roiser. 2012. Bonsai Trees in Your Head: How the Pavlovian System Sculpts Goal-Directed Choices by Pruning Decision Trees. PLoS Computational Biology 8 (3): e1002410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huys, Q.J., N. Lally, P. Faulkner, N. Eshel, E. Seifritz, S.J. Gershman, et al. 2015. Interplay of Approximate Planning Strategies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (10): 3098–3103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalava, J., and S. Griffiths. 2017. Philosophers on Psychopaths: A Cautionary Tale in Interdisciplinarity. Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology 24 (1): 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, D. 2011. Yuck!: The Nature and Moral Significance of Disgust. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Killen, M., and J.G. Smetana. 2015. Origins and Development of Morality. Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science 3 (7): 701–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langdon, A.J., M.J. Sharpe, G. Schoenbaum, and Y. Niv. 2018. Model-Based Predictions for Dopamine. Current Opinion in Neurobiology 49: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.W., S. Shimojo, and J.P. O’Doherty. 2014. Neural Computations Underlying Arbitration Between Model-Based and Model-Free Learning. Neuron 81 (3): 687–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macintosh, N.J. 1983. Conditioning and Associative Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahmut, M.K., J. Homewood, and R.J. Stevenson. 2008. The Characteristics of Non-criminals with High Psychopathy Traits: Are they Similar to Criminal Psychopaths? Journal of Research in Personality 42 (3): 679–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • May, J. 2018. Regard for Reason in the Moral Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, S. 2018. Moral Perception and Its Rivals. In Evaluative Perception, ed. A. Bergqvist and R. Cowan, 161–182. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. 2006. Why Choose This Book? How We Make Decisions. New York: Dutton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moutoussis, M., E.T. Bullmore, I.M. Goodyer, P. Fonagy, P.B. Jones, R.J. Dolan, et al. 2018. Change, Stability, and Instability in the Pavlovian Guidance of Behaviour from Adolescence to Young Adulthood. PLoS Computational Biology 14 (12): e1006679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahmias, E., J. Shepard, and S. Reuter. 2014. It’s OK if ‘My Brain Made Me Do It’: People’s Intuitions About Free Will and Neuroscientific Prediction. Cognition 133 (2): 502–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Navarrete, C.D., M.M. McDonald, M.L. Mott, and B. Asher. 2012. Virtual Movrality: Emotion and Action in a Simulated Three-Dimensional “Trolley Problem”. Emotion 12 (2): 364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. 2002. How Psychopaths Threaten Moral Rationalism: Is it Irrational to be Amoral? The Monist 85 (2): 285–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2004. Sentimental Rules: On the Natural Foundations of Moral Judgment. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S., and R. Mallon. 2006. Moral Dilemmas and Moral Rules. Cognition 100 (3): 530–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nobes, G., G. Panagiotaki, and C. Pawson. 2009. The Influence of Negligence, Intention, and Outcome on Children’s Moral Judgments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 104 (4): 382–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prinz, J.J., and S. Nichols. 2010. Moral Emotions. In The Moral Psychology Handbook, ed. J. Doris, 111–146. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rand, D.G., A. Peysakhovich, G.T. Kraft-Todd, G.E. Newman, O. Wurzbacher, M.A. Nowak, and J.D. Greene. 2014. Social Heuristics Shape Intuitive Cooperation. Nature Communications 5: 3677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rangel, A., C. Camerer, and P.R. Montague. 2008. A Framework for Studying the Neurobiology of Value-Based Decision Making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9 (7): 545–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redish, D.A. 2013. The Mind Within the Brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rescorla, R.A., and A.R. Wagner. 1972. A Theory of Pavlovian Conditioning: Variations in the Effectiveness of Reinforcement and Non-reinforcement. Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory 2: 64–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossano, F., H. Rakoczy, and M. Tomasello. 2011. Young Children’s Understanding of Violations of Property Rights. Cognition 121 (2): 219–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, W., P. Dayan, and P.R. Montague. 1997. A Neural Substrate of Prediction and Reward. Science 275 (5306): 1593–1599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheffield, F.D. 1965. Relation Between Classical and Instrumental Conditioning. In Classical Conditioning, ed. W.F. Prokasy, 302–322. New York: Appleton Century Crofts.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shenhav, A., and J.D. Greene. 2010. Moral Judgments Recruit Domain-General Valuation Mechanisms to Integrate Representations of Probability and Magnitude. Neuron 67 (4): 667–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetana, J.G., and J.L. Braeges. 1990. The Development of Toddlers’ Moral and Conventional Judgments. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly (1982-) 36: 329–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somashekhar, S. 2014. Human Rights Campaign Says Barilla Has Turned Around Its Policies on LGBT. Washington Post. November 19, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sripada, C.S., and S. Stich. 2005. A Framework for the Psychology of Norms. In The Innate Mind: Volume 2: Culture and Cognition, ed. P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, and S. Stich, 280–301. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strohminger, N., and S. Nichols. 2014. The Essential Moral Self. Cognition 131 (1): 159–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutton, R.S., and A. Barto. 2018. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. 2n ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tricomi, E., B.W. Balleine, and J.P. O’Doherty. 2009. A Specific Role for Posterior Dorsolateral Striatum in Human Habit Learning. European Journal of Neuroscience 29 (11): 2225–2232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentin, V.V., A. Dickinson, and J.P. O’Doherty. 2007. Determining the Neural Substrates of Goal-Directed Learning in the Human Brain. Journal of Human Neuroscience 27: 4019–4026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van’t Wout, M., R.S. Kahn, A.G. Sanfey, and A. Aleman. 2006. Affective State and Decision-Making in the Ultimatum Game. Experimental Brain Research 169 (4): 564–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, D.R., and H. Williams. 1969. Auto-Maintenance in the Pigeon: Sustained Pecking Despite Contingent Non-reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 12 (4): 511–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, H.H., B.J. Knowlton, and B.W. Balleine. 2004. Lesions of Dorsolateral Striatum Preserve Outcome Expectancy But Disrupt Habit Formation in Instrumental Learning. European Journal of Neuroscience 19: 181–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy, Rhodes College, Memphis, TN, USA

    Julia Haas

Authors
  1. Julia Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julia Haas .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. New York, NY, USA

    Geoffrey S. Holtzman

  2. Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, USA

    Elisabeth Hildt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Haas, J. (2020). Two Theories of Moral Cognition. In: Holtzman, G.S., Hildt, E. (eds) Does Neuroscience Have Normative Implications?. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 22. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56134-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation