Motivation and emotion/Book/2024/Moral dilemmas and emotion

Moral dilemmas and emotion:
How can emotion aid or hinder in moral decision making?

Multimedia presentation (3 min)

Overview

This chapter explores the relationship between moral dilemmas and emotion. We all deal with moral dilemmas in our lives. Should I lie to protect someone's feelings, or tell them the truth to help them? When I see someone struggling or being treated unfairly, should I intervene to help them or stay out of other peoples' affairs?

We often think about this in rational philosophical terms: what is the right thing to do? But we rarely consider how our emotions influence the moral decisions we make. This chapter shows that understanding the role of emotions in moral decision-making can help us to make more informed moral decisions. It will do so by:

• Introducing the concept of moral dilemmas
• Defining emotion and introduce theories of emotion
• Investigating the interactions between moral decision-making and emotion using psychological theory
• Exploring the ways in which this knowledge can be used in practice to make more informed moral decisions

Focus questions: What is a moral dilemma? What are emotions? How can emotion affect our decision making capacity when faced with a moral dilemma? How can this information benefit people and serve a meaningful purpose in day to day life?

What is a moral dilemma?

In moral philosophy, a moral dilemma is a situation in which a person must make a choice between two or more options that leads the person to violate one or more of their moral principles. In the discipline of moral philosophy, a moral dilemma is strictly defined and has the following characteristics: there is an agent, (such as an individual) whose responsibility it is to make a decision between two or more options, but may only choose one. In addition, to qualify as a genuine ethical dilemma, each available choice must not be obviously more significant than the others, that is, they must carry a similar or equivalent moral weight. Ultimately, resolving a genuine ethical dilemma must lead one way or another to moral failure (McConnell 2018).

The following case study is an example of a genuine ethical dilemma: Case study: Sarah is a new mother to twins Jim and Natasha. The doctor comes to inform Sarah that both her children are sick and that there is only enough medicine to treat one of the twins. However, the doctor says that if they give half the recommended dose to an infant, there is a 30% chance that the baby will survive. The illness is rapidly progressing, so there is not enough time to search for more medicine and a decision must be made now, or else both twins will pass away. Sarah may choose to definitely save one of the twins or take a chance with both their lives. How should the medicine be distributed?

This is clearly a moral dilemma. Sarah is an agent that has to make a decision between two options. The choice is between the certainty of saving one child's life and the possibility of saving both, at the risk of losing one or both children. One such theory is known as utilitarianism, which states that a moral decision is one that produces the most happiness and pleasure (Kahane et al. 2018). Another is deontology, which states that individuals make moral decisions based on innate, universal principles of right and wrong and which focuses on the intention of the individual rather than the consequences of an action (Jennifer M. Barrow; Paras B. Khandahar, 2023).

What is your intuitive response? What decision should Sarah make? Do your emotions push one way or the other?

Now, let's further consider the problem to see if your answer changes when engaged in a more rational philosophical analysis. Should Sarah choose the first option of administering a full dose of the medicine to either Jim or Natasha, the other child will perish. Should Sarah choose the second option of administering half a dose to both children, there are four possible outcomes:

Jim and Natasha survive Jim and Natasha die Jim survives while Natasha dies Natasha survives while Jim dies

Therefore Sarah is faced with certainty in the first choice, choosing between one of her two children and uncertainty in the second choice, where one, both or neither children survive. But what exactly is the rate of survival when administering the half dose? Using binomial probability, it is theoretically possible to predict the likelihood of survival if both children are treated.

Jim and Natasha survive - 9% Jim and Natasha die - 49% The probability of one child surviving - 42%

Figure 1. Statue of thinking Socrates.

After a more careful inspection of the facts, has your answer changed? If so, why? Or if not, why not? The response of each individual to various ethical dilemmas is bound to differ on the basis of one's beliefs.

One can greatly benefit from the wealth of knowledge in the literature of moral philosophy. For example, the utilitarian may argue that the path by which most pain is avoided is the morally right choice. Therefore, all risk should be avoided, and the full dose should be given to a single baby, in order to avoid the risk of both children dying which would maximize pain and suffering. Whereas, deontologists may argue that the agent's innate sense of right and wrong, in this case, Sarah, will guide her to make a moral decision. To help understand what choice Sarah may make, consider the following study, where researchers in Norway interviewed the mothers of children who were given a life threatening diagnosis at birth and given a choice to perform a surgery or not. Those families who chose to perform the surgery said that they perceived this to be the only correct choice in order to prevent the deaths of their children, whereas families who chose not to perform the surgery commented that they chose to do this in order to prevent pain and suffering to the child (Vandvik & Forde, 2000).

But is there a piece of the puzzle which is missing? In the past, moral decision-making has primarily been explored through the lens of moral philosophy: that is, by asking what is the right thing to do through the application of abstract moral theories. This perspective does not engage with the fundamental impact of human emotion in all decision making, including moral decision making. It is well documented that moral behaviour does not always align with moral belief, and that people's emotions can affect their moral behaviours and attitudes (Bentahila et al, 2021). This chapter explores the idea that psychological science regarding emotion and decision making can be used to develop a more comprehensive understanding of moral decision making than that offered by moral philosophy alone.

What are emotions?

This section defines emotion as well as introduce several theories of emotion to provide some background information. While there are several definitions for emotion, the American Psychological Association definition will be used. It defines emotion as "conscious mental reactions subjectively experienced as strong feelings, usually directed toward a specific object and usually accompanied by a physiological reaction and behavioural changes in the body." (American Psychological Association, 2021). These responses are felt as feelings such as happiness or sadness and are experienced alongside a physiological response to stimuli. Emotions are an increasingly popular area of research in psychology, and to this point, two important key factors have been identified by researchers. That is, there are four universal emotions: happiness, sadness, anger and fear (Gu et al, 2021). By extension, this also means that emotions are not universal and that emotional recognition and response may indeed differ across cultures. Nevertheless, the origin and function of emotions, as well as the process by which one experiences emotion are two highly debated topics within psychology. There are several theories which attempt to define and explore these topics. This section focuses on the theories that explain the order and mechanisms through which emotions are experienced.

James-Lange theory of emotion

Figure 2. James-Lange theory of emotion

The James-Lange theory of emotion posits that the emotional response to a stimuli occurs after and as a result of the physiological reaction, as shown in figure 3. This, of course, raises some questions and criticisms of the theory. For example, the physiological reaction of increased heart rate, perspiration and breathing rate could be the result of many stimulus, such as presenting an oral presentation, or a morning jog. However, the emotional response of these two stimuli may be very different, even though the physiological response is identical. To test this, researchers in the 1930s surgically modified cats and dogs in an attempt to limit their ability to have normal physiological reactions to stimulus. In the end, it was found that the animals were still capable of having an emotional response to stimulus (Cannon, 1927).

Cannon-Bard theory of emotion

Figure 3. Cannon-Bard Theory of Emotion

Unlike the James-Lange theory, the Cannon-Bard theory of emotion states that the physiological reaction and emotional response occur simultaneously in response to a stimulus. For example, a young girl drops her ice cream on the floor (stimuli), leading to the young girl crying and stomping her feet (physiological response) and, simultaneously, feelings of sadness and frustration (emotional response). However, the theory does not account for cognitive appraisal and is therefore lacking in comprehensiveness. Without cognitive appraisal, one has a very difficult task to explain, for example, how an individual experiencing a hallucination identify they are experiencing psychosis, thereby reducing the emotional response (Chaudhury, 2010), despite undergoing an identical process of stimuli to physiological and emotional response to one who is experiencing the very same thing in reality.

Lazarus' cognitive-mediational theory

The cognitive-mediational theory of emotion claims that after an individual is presented with a stimulus, they unconsciously go through a process which Lazarus called cognitive appraisal. In the cognitive appraisal stage, the individual perceiving the stimulus draws on their personal beliefs and past experiences and then interprets the stimulus through their own individualized lens. According to the cognitive mediational theory, after the cognitive appraisal stage, emotions are then experienced, followed by the physiological response.

Schachter-Singer's two-factor theory of emotion

The Schachter-Singer's two-factor theory of emotion stated that upon perceiving a stimulus, a physiological response and appraisal occurred simultaneously followed by the emotional response. To test their theory, Schachter and Singer conducted an experiment in which participants were told that they would be testing a new drug which measures properties of eyesight. In fact participants were about to be given epinephrine and were randomly separated into four groups:

1. a group in which participants were told they would experience similar effects as epinephrine
2. a group in which participants were not given any additional information
3. a group in which participants were told they would experience side effects which were not expected side effects of the epinephrine
4. a control group in which participants were given a placebo

After receiving their dose, participants were asked to wait in a room with an actor for 20 minutes. In one set of conditions, the actor was instructed to behave euphorically, while in the other set of conditions, the actor was instructed to behave angrily (Schachter & Singer, 1962). The study showed that participants who could not comprehend the reason behind their physiological reaction were more likely to be influenced by the actor's behaviours in both the euphoric and anger conditions.

While all aforementioned theories build upon one another and each have compelling qualities, for the purpose of investigating the interaction between emotion and moral dilemmas, the two factor theory of emotion is the most comprehensive theory. Thus, the two factor theory will be used when analysing the impact of emotion on moral decision making.

What is the interaction between emotion and moral dilemmas?

The connection between emotion and moral dilemmas can be investigated through the lens of various psychological theories, which have much to say about not only the process by which emotion is experienced as mentioned in the previous section, but also the functional, adaptive or maladaptive qualities of emotions. The following section introduces some of these theories, as well as a case study within each theory to demonstrate the effects of emotion through the lens of the particular theory on one's ability to respond to a moral dilemma.

Evolutionary psychology and functionalism

Figure 5. Human evolution scheme

Evolutionary psychology asks the question "how did the capacity for human behaviour develop?" Whereas, functionalism asks the question "why did the capacity for human behaviour develop?" These two theories, while not identical, have much in common in the way of their approach to understanding emotion and moral behaviour. One common theme in the literature is that of survival. That is, the how and why of human emotion and behaviour can be understood to have developed to improve the chances of survival. For example, the fight or flight response, in which one responds to a threatening stimulus by either fleeing or fighting, is speculated to have developed as an adaptive survival mechanism in many animals including humans (Šimić et al, 2021). The mechanism is associated with the emotions fear and anger.

In this example, the benefits are clear from an evolutionary psychology viewpoint, the how: in the face of the threat of predators, humans learned over time to appraise a threat and respond with a behaviour or face fatal consequences. The benefits from the functionalist perspective, why humans learned to respond to the aforementioned threats are very similar; out of necessity, to survive in the face of existential threats. Therefore, it is possible to view the emotional psychology of moral reasoning, using this lens: emotions induce an individual to make the decision that increases the likelihood of survival.

In order to better illustrate this concept, consider the following case study: John is a married man with one newborn child. His mother is staying with them to help look after the newborn. One evening, John fell asleep in his living room on the couch. When he wakes, he finds that there is a fire burning in his home. At this point, there is no way to extinguish the flames. John knows that the distance from the living room to his bedroom where his wife is staying, the cot room where his newborn is staying and the spare bedroom where his mother is staying are are equally far apart, and that he has time only to save one of them. Who should John save?

Evolutionary psychologists have argued that compassionate behaviour and love are adaptive, evolved emotions that increase the chances of survival in humans (Goetz et al, 2010). A moral philosopher might examine the situation by analysing John's options through various moral theories. But one can imagine that in that moment, abstract moral reasoning is very far from John's mind, and his reasoning is being dominated by emotion. Presumably John loves his wife, his child and his mother, but perhaps not all in the same way. Furthermore, newborns are extremely vulnerable and dependent, whereas adults are more independent and capable of helping themselves.

Cognitive dissonance theory

Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort experienced by an individual when an individual performs an action that does not align with their beliefs. According to cognitive dissonance theory, this discomfort causes the individual to shift their attitudes and beliefs in alignment with the behaviour, in order to justify the behaviour and reduce discomfort. Alternatively, the individual may adjust their behaviour to reduce dissonance.

Consider this case study: Hanna is pregnant and is a regular smoker. Hanna knows that smoking is bad for her health and the health of her unborn child. The long term effects of her smoking could lead to potentially life threatening diseases in the future. Smoking cigarettes While smoking cigarettes is the only way Hanna knows to relieve her extreme feelings of stress and anxiety, Hanna must make a choice between her health and the health of her unborn child or smoking cigarettes to relieve extreme feelings of anxiety and stress.

Moral philosophy would have you think that Hanna should decide what to do by applying moral frameworks, but in reality her emotions dictate the emotions she makes. Hanna alters her moral framework to match her moral choices.

A study in Oklahoma Christian University investigated this very question. Psychology students were presented with one of three scenarios in which the main character was either stealing, cheating or lying. In each scenario, the background gave reasons for why the character was behaving the way they were. Then, participants were asked whether they believed the behaviour was wrong or justified. Participants said that while in these particular cases, stealing, lying or cheating was justified, as a general rule, those behaviours are morally wrong (Graham, 2007). Therefore, if one's actions are seen as justifiable to themselves, even if they are an exception to the rule, one may choose to behave in a way that is morally wrong.

How can knowledge about how emotions influence moral decision making be useful in everyday life?

This chapter is a resource which promotes ethical preparedness as well as a resource that challenges the paradigm of philosophy as the main source of moral wisdom. By introducing key concepts such as the difference between moral philosophy and moral psychology, various theories of emotion and psychological science, you, the reader have hopefully been provided with some tools, or at the very least, exposed to tools to identify and negotiate ethical dilemmas and identify your own biases (Samuel et al, 2022).

Conclusion

Psychological theory has a vast amount of valuable information to contribute to the discussion of morality and ethics A moral dilemma is a decision with two or more choices, wherein an agent must choose from one option, but may not choose from more than one, resulting in a moral loss Emotions are feelings experienced by people in response to stimuli in combination with a physiological response Learning about emotions and morality through the lenses of psychological theories, we can become aware of the reasons why we make certain decisions People are incredibly complex, and when met with sometimes what might seem an impossible decision, there are going to be moments where one will be left wondering whether or not they made the right choice. Instead, one should be focused on the factors which led them to make a choice in the first place, reflect upon those factors and strive for improvement

See also

• Cognitive dissonance (Wikipedia)
• Functionalism (Wikipedia)
• Moral dilemma(Wikipedia)
• Morality as a psychological need (Book chapter, 2021)
• Social Cognitive Theory (Wikipedia)

References

Bandura, A. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live With Themselves. Worth Publishers.

Barrow JM, Khandhar PB. Deontology. 2023 Aug 8. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. PMID: 29083671.

McConnell, Terrance, "Moral Dilemmas", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2024/entries/moral-dilemmas/>.

Kahane G, Everett JAC, Earp BD, Caviola L, Faber NS, Crockett MJ, Savulescu J. Beyond sacrificial harm: A two-dimensional model of utilitarian psychology. Psychol Rev. 2018 Mar;125(2):131-164. doi: 10.1037/rev0000093. Epub 2017 Dec 21. Erratum in: Psychol Rev. 2018 Mar;125(2):164. doi: 10.1037/rev0000112. PMID: 29265854; PMCID: PMC5900580.

Bentahila, L., Fontaine, R., & Pennequin, V. (2021). Universality and Cultural Diversity in Moral Reasoning and Judgment. Frontiers in psychology, 13(12), 764360. PubMed. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.764360 Cannon, W. B. (1987). The James-Lange Theory of Emotions: A Critical Examination and an Alternative Theory. The American Journal of Psychology, 100(3/4), 567-586. Jstor. https://doi.org/10.2307/1422695

Mavroudis, C., Mavroudis, C. D., Farrell, R. M., Jacobs, M. L., Jacobs, J. P., & Kodish, E. D. (2011). Informed consent, bioethical equipoise, and hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Cardiology in the young, 2(133), 40. PubMed. 10.1017/S1047951111001715

Šimić G, Tkalčić M, Vukić V, Mulc D, Španić E, Šagud M, Olucha-Bordonau FE, Vukšić M, R Hof P. Understanding Emotions: Origins and Roles of the Amygdala. Biomolecules. 2021 May 31;11(6):823. doi: 10.3390/biom11060823. PMID: 34072960; PMCID: PMC8228195.

Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological review, 69(5), 379-399. APA PsycARTICLES. 10.1037/h0046234

Graham, R. (2007). Theory of cognitive dissonance as it pertains to morality. Journal of Scientific Psychology, 29.

Samuel G, Ballard LM, Carley H, Lucassen AM. Ethical preparedness in health research and care: the role of behavioural approaches. BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Nov 17;23(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00853-1. PMID: 36397032; PMCID: PMC9672545.