Synonyms
Definition
The scientific study of morality has increasingly revealed its underlying psychological processes and features.
Introduction
Presently, there is no unified definition of morality (Krebs 2011). From a lay perspective, morality is one’s sense of the difference between right and wrong. It is a system of personal attitudes and beliefs about what actions are socially permissible, which behaviors should be morally condemned, and what degree of punishment is appropriate for various social transgressions; it is a collection of conventional rules that guide how individuals navigate and solve ethical dilemmas. In lieu of offering definitions of morality, current scientific research on morality attempts to identify the underlying psychology of moral intuitions by organizing aspects of morality into universal processes or features (Graham et al. 2013; Haidt and Joseph 2004); identifying the evolved, mechanistic design of moral...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Asao, K., & Buss, D. M. (2016). The tripartite theory of Machiavellian morality: Judgment, influence, and conscience as distinct moral adaptations. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 3–26). New York: Springer.
Barrett, H. C., & Kurzban, R. (2006). Modularity in cognition: Framing the debate. Psychological Review, 113, 628–647.
Baumard, N. (2010). Has punishment played a role in the evolution of cooperation? A critical review. Mind & Society, 9, 171–192.
Baumard, N., André, J. B., & Sperber, D. (2013). A mutualistic approach to morality: The evolution of fairness by partner choice. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36, 59–78.
Benavidez, T. M., Neria, A. L., & Jones, D. N. (2016). The bond that breaks: Closeness and honor predict morality-related aggression. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 2, 140–148.
Bøggild, T., & Petersen, M. B. (2016). The evolved functions of procedural fairness: An adaptation for politics. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 247–276). New York: Springer.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1996). Are humans good intuitive statisticians after all? Rethinking some conclusions from the literature on judgment under uncertainty. Cognition, 58, 1–73.
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2006). Evolutionary psychology, moral heuristics, and the law. Cambridge, MA: Dahlem University Press.
de Waal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2009). Mysteries of morality. Cognition, 112, 281–299.
DeScioli, P., & Kurzban, R. (2013). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 477–496.
DeScioli, P., Christner, J., & Kurzban, R. (2011). The omission strategy. Psychological Science, 22, 442–446.
Gigerenzer, G. (2008). Moral intuition= fast and frugal heuristics? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity (pp. 1–26). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Glenn, A. L., Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., & Haidt, J. (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy? Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 384–398.
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.
Greene, J. (2004). Cognitive neuroscience and the structure of the moral mind. In P. Carruthers, S. Laurence, & S. Stich (Eds.), Innateness and the structure of the mind (pp. 338–352). New York: Oxford University Press.
Greene, J. (2014). Moral tribes: Emotion, reason and the gap between us and them. New York: Atlantic Books.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55–66.
Haidt, J., & Pinker, S. (2016). Moral psychology: An exchange. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from the World Wide Web: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/04/07/moral-psychology-an-exchange/
Harris, S. (2011). The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Harris, S. (2014). The marionette’s lament. Retrieved May 18, 2016, from the World Wide Web: https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-marionettes-lament
Krebs, D. (2011). The origins of morality: An evolutionary account. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Kurzban, R., Dukes, A., & Weeden, J. (2010). Sex, drugs and moral goals: Reproductive strategies and views about recreational drugs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 277, 3501–3508.
Kurzban, R., DeScioli, P., & Fein, D. (2012). Hamilton vs. Kant: Pitting adaptations for altruism against adaptations for moral judgment. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 323–333.
Marczyk, J. (2015). Moral alliance strategies theory. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1, 77–90.
Mikhail, J. (2007). Universal moral grammar: Theory, evidence and the future. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 143–152.
Stake, J. E. (2016). Property law reflections of a sense of right and wrong. In T. K. Shackelford & R. D. Hansen (Eds.), The evolution of morality (pp. 277–287). New York: Springer.
Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2010). Groups in mind: The coalitional roots of war and morality. In H. Høgh-Olesen (Ed.), Human morality & sociality: Evolutionary & comparative perspectives (pp. 91–234). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Tooby, J., Cosmides, L., & Price, M. E. (2006). Cognitive adaptations for n-person exchange: The evolutionary roots of organizational behavior. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27, 103–129.
Wright, R. (1994). The moral animal. New York: Pantheon.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this entry
Cite this entry
Mogilski, J.K. (2016). Science and Morality. In: Weekes-Shackelford, V., Shackelford, T., Weekes-Shackelford, V. (eds) Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_453-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_453-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16999-6
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences