Morality and Justice 22 Linda J
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Morality and Justice 22 Linda J. Skitka , Christopher W. Bauman , and Elizabeth Mullen Morality and justice have apparent similarities. Piaget, 1932/ 1997 ; Kohlberg, 1981 ). Others view Both facilitate social interaction, coordination, morality as one of several possible motivations and cooperation. Both can feel like external stan- for justice (e.g., Folger, 2001 ; Skitka, 2003 ). Still dards that somehow should carry more weight others argue that justice is merely one component than individuals’ preferences. That said, morality of morality (e.g., Haidt & Joseph, 2004 ). The and justice are not synonymous. Scholars as far goals of this chapter are therefore to (a) review back as Aristotle have identifi ed ways that moral- these different perspectives on morality and jus- ity and justice differ (see Konow, 2008 ). In this tice, and (b) offer constructive critiques and iden- chapter, we review research programs from the tify ways that these theories might inform each literatures on moral development , the social psy- other. We conclude that three separate literatures chology of justice, and the burgeoning social converge on the basic idea that morality and jus- psychological literature on adult morality and tice are distinct but related constructs. However, examine how scholars have conceptualized the no consensus exists regarding more specifi c relation between morality and justice. We review aspects of the relation between the constructs. these literatures in roughly chronological order to illustrate how theorizing and research about morality and justice has changed over time. 22.1 Moral Development We fi nd a great deal of variability in how theo- and Justice rists have approached links between morality and justice. Some treat them as the same construct 22.1.1 Classic Theories of Moral (e.g., classic theories of moral development; Development Justice has had a long and deep connection to L. J. Skitka (*) theory and research on moral development, University of Illinois at Chicago , Chicago , IL , USA beginning with Jean Piaget’s focus on the moral e-mail: [email protected] lives of children as revealed through games and C. W. Bauman play. He observed that children’s games are dom- University of California , Irvine , CA , USA inated by concerns about fairness (Piaget, e-mail: [email protected] 1932/ 1997 ). In early years, children are very con- E. Mullen cerned about following the rules, but they also San Jose State University , San Jose , CA , USA begin to understand that rules are relatively arbi- e-mail: [email protected] trary as they develop. Finding ways to coordinate © Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016 407 C. Sabbagh, M. Schmitt (eds.), Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_22 408 L.J. Skitka et al. play to facilitate group function becomes more 1982 ). There also have been many critiques of important than the rules themselves. Piaget there- the evidence that Kohlberg tried to mount in sup- fore came to view moral development as the port of the notion that moral development occurs result of interpersonal interactions through which in universal ordered stages (e.g., Simpson, 1974 ; people fi nd solutions all will accept as fair Sullivan, 1977 ). (Piaget, 1932/ 1997 ). Kohlberg ( 1981 ) embraced and elaborated on Piaget’s conclusion that moral development is 22.1.2 Contemporary Theories rooted in justice. Kohlberg described the stages of Moral Development of moral development in a variety of ways, but one clear way he thought they differed was in the Contemporary theories of moral development motivation that drives justice judgments. In have adapted some components of Kohlberg’s Stages 1 and 2, people do little more than seek to ideas, but have dropped its most controversial avoid punishment and obtain rewards. Their con- aspects, including normative claims that some ceptualization of justice is mainly defi ned by stages of moral development and reasoning are self-interest. At Stages 3 and 4, people begin to better or worse than others. Ties between moral consider others’ expectations for their behavior development and justice operations remain, but and the implications of their behavior for society the emphasis on justice is not as strong in con- as a whole. They show concern for other people temporary theories of moral development as they and their feelings, follow rules in an effort to be were in Kohlberg’s writing about the topic. Next, seen as a good person, and feel an obligation to we review two of these contemporary theories: contribute to the group, society, or institution. At Moral schema and domain theory. Stage 5, people defi ne justice in terms of uphold- ing people’s basic rights, values, and the legal Moral schema theory . Moral schema theory contracts of society. People at this stage under- reconceived Kohlberg’s stages as cognitive sche- stand social life is a social contract to abide by mas (Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999a , the laws for the good of all and to protect the 1999b ). According to this theoretical update, rights of the individual and the group. Finally, at people use three kinds of schemas to make socio- Stage 6, people believe that laws or social agree- moral judgments: personal interest, norm mainte- ments are valid only if they are based on univer- nance, and post-conventional. The personal sal principles, and their justice judgments are interest schema develops in early childhood, the motivated by concerns about self-condemnation norm maintenance schema develops during ado- rather than social approbation. In short, people lescence, and the post- conventional schema become increasingly able to take into account the develops in late adolescence and adulthood. Once perspectives of others as they progress through formed, people can use any one of the schemas to the stages, and the source of moral motivation guide their judgments and behavior, and theoreti- shifts from outside (i.e., heteronomy) to inside cally can move fl uidly between them as a func- the individual (i.e., autonomy). tion of how well features of situations and social Although Kohlberg’s theory was enormously relationships map onto and therefore prime the infl uential, it nonetheless has a host of problems. activation of one or another core schema. For example, people seldom give responses to When people apply the personal interest moral dilemmas that can be completely encapsu- schema, they tend to focus on their own self- lated or described by any single Kohlbergian interests in a situation or justify the behavior of stage. The theory also has been criticized for others in terms of their perceptions of others’ championing a Western worldview and being personal interests. The norm maintenance culturally insensitive (e.g., Simpson, 1974 ; schema focuses on (a) the needs of cooperative Sullivan, 1977 ), and sexist in both its construc- social systems and the group, (b) a belief that tion and interpretation of morality (Gilligan, living up to these norms and standards will pay- 22 Morality and Justice 409 off in the long run, and (c) a strong duty orienta- create and maintain order within the group. tion, whereby one should obey and respect Conventions are arbitrary in the sense that they authorities. Finally, the post-conventional depend on group norms and practices rather than schema primes a sense of moral obligation based intrinsic features of the actions they govern. For on the notions that laws, roles, codes, and con- example, greeting someone with a handshake or tracts facilitate cooperation. However, people by showing them the back of your hand with just also recognize that these standards are relatively your middle fi nger extended is only meaningful arbitrary, and there are a variety of social in a particular society that has established rules arrangements that can achieve the same ends. about those actions. Other societies have estab- This schema leads people more toward an orien- lished different practices for greetings that are tation that duties and rights follow from the equivalent in terms of how they regulate interper- greater moral purpose behind conventions, not sonal interactions (e.g., kisses on the cheek, fl ick- from the conventions themselves. Post- ing your hand under your chin); nothing about conventional thinking therefore focuses people these actions in-and-of-themselves is inherently on ideals, conceptions of the ultimate moral right or wrong. In sum, morals and conventions good or imperative (Rest et al., 1999a ). Although both establish permissibility or impermissibility moral schema theory does not explicitly refer- and create social order, but conventions depend ence justice or justice operations, Rest et al. on group context whereas morals are viewed as ( 1999a , 1999b); Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, and more universal. In domain theory, as in formalist Thoma ( 1999b ) nonetheless emphasize that their ethics, morals (a) are not based on established theory is fundamentally about justice: “We still rules (i.e., rule contingency), (b) prohibit rules agree with Kohlberg that the aim of the develop- that would sanction undesirable actions (i.e., rule mental analysis of moral judgment is the rational alterability), and (c) generalize to members of reconstruction of the ontogenesis of justice oper- other groups and cultures (i.e., rule and act ations” (Rest et al., 1999b , p. 56). generalizability). Supporting the notion that there is an impor- Domain theory . Domain theory was proposed as tant psychological distinction between the moral an alternative view of moral development as criti- and conventional domains, people judge and pun- cism of Kohlberg’s theory began to mount. A key ish moral transgressors more severely than those observation that helped launch domain theory who break conventions (Smetana, 2006 ; Turiel, was that people, even young children, differenti- 1998 ). Additionally, moral rules do not depend ate between actions that harm innocent people on authorities. Children say that hitting and steal- and those that break rules but do not harm anyone ing are wrong, even if a teacher says it is okay (Turiel, 1983 ; see also Nucci & Turiel, 1978 ; (Nucci & Turiel, 1978 ; Smetana, 1981 , 1984 ).